| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 27 2010 15:06 FREEloss_ca wrote: I hope Browder reads this. Moving shot, please come back. I hope Karune or someone reads this and forwards the good points to Browder with less of the beard hate :p | ||
|
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 27 2010 14:25 ploy wrote: That's mostly due to the fact that people didn't have the same amount of experience with a RTS like SC. Once SC hit around 2003-2004 the games were just as good as today. Not by skill standards obviously, but entertainment wise and skill wise. The julyzerg muta micro vid that was posted earlier was done before the discovery of muta stacking, july's muta control was amazing and he was famed because of it. iloveoov demonstrated amazing micro when he was able to split his army in three dodging all the lurker spines of a hold lurker on requiem - you just dont have the same kind of intensity or that feeling of "do or die" that you did in SC1. I agree, I did not mean to sound condescending by calling them micro tricks - I should have just said micro. However, my point still stands. The quality of starcraft 1 games was TERRIBLE by today's standards for several years after its release. I don't see how it is reasonable to think that we should be seeing equally as impressive game play from players who have only played the beta for a couple months. Going back even further, Boxer's amazing marine control against Siva (oh that might've been around the same era) or his control against Yellow on Gaema. You had reaver micro - which was so broken that it was patched in 1.07 (i think? or 1.02 one of the two) - this was particularly used by intotherainbow in 2001. You had intotherain's skill with spellcasters in 2001. Nada's vulture control in 2002. Yes a lot of tricks have developed over the years - and they're been incorporated accordingly. But micro tricks go wayyy back right to the beginning of SC. In fact, SC in it's early years was a micro game! As it stands in SC2 we don't have the same kind of palette to work with. Drops are basically dead - for instance TLO's colossus drop build, while cool, is pretty weak. Yes that is certainly microable - but its just not relevant at the moment. There are no units like the reaver, or Storm in SC1 which give that "do or die" feel to the micro. Indeed, colossus/prism micro is pretty easy (hell I can do it). We've seen things like blink micro (i.e. vs Idra) and that's not particularly hard to pull off either - once you know how to do it it's simple. SC2 will never be a game which depends heavily on micro, since there are no amazingly overpowered units that shine when microed well. There are no units with the "do or die" feel to it, thus outside of basic kiting, battle positioning (further weakened by lack of a HGA), and simple tricks - the game will always be about army composition and how well you can macro. | ||
|
chocoed
United States398 Posts
| ||
|
Mysteriis
Sweden2 Posts
Every kid and his mother are so excited about this game now its like Broodwar doesn´t exist anymore and all of us who have woken up early or stayed up late year after year to watch Boxer,Reach,Jaedong,Flash and many more battle it out with their incredible play are going to be left watching some randoms with 110 apm doing the incredible 1a2a3a play with MMM and Roach/Hydra I´m really hoping for a CS 1.6/CS Source situation where the community will stand up and say no to better graphics instead of the great great feeling of playing a perfect game. But i higly doubt it  This article really deserves the nobel prize of awesomeness and i hope it gets read by blizzard and that they feel fkin ashamed about what they´ve done to our beloved starcraft lineage Great read really great read | ||
|
FusionCutter
Canada974 Posts
"I completely trust Blizzard" ideology. Blizzard's a great company that makes great games, but that doesn't mean future products will the 100% infalliable. Props to you sir. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On April 27 2010 15:26 Plexa wrote: That's mostly due to the fact that people didn't have the same amount of experience with a RTS like SC. Once SC hit around 2003-2004 the games were just as good as today. Not by skill standards obviously, but entertainment wise and skill wise. The julyzerg muta micro vid that was posted earlier was done before the discovery of muta stacking, july's muta control was amazing and he was famed because of it. iloveoov demonstrated amazing micro when he was able to split his army in three dodging all the lurker spines of a hold lurker on requiem - you just dont have the same kind of intensity or that feeling of "do or die" that you did in SC1. Going back even further, Boxer's amazing marine control against Siva (oh that might've been around the same era) or his control against Yellow on Gaema. You had reaver micro - which was so broken that it was patched in 1.07 (i think? or 1.02 one of the two) - this was particularly used by intotherainbow in 2001. You had intotherain's skill with spellcasters in 2001. Nada's vulture control in 2002. Yes a lot of tricks have developed over the years - and they're been incorporated accordingly. But micro tricks go wayyy back right to the beginning of SC. In fact, SC in it's early years was a micro game! As it stands in SC2 we don't have the same kind of palette to work with. Drops are basically dead - for instance TLO's colossus drop build, while cool, is pretty weak. Yes that is certainly microable - but its just not relevant at the moment. There are no units like the reaver, or Storm in SC1 which give that "do or die" feel to the micro. Indeed, colossus/prism micro is pretty easy (hell I can do it). We've seen things like blink micro (i.e. vs Idra) and that's not particularly hard to pull off either - once you know how to do it it's simple. SC2 will never be a game which depends heavily on micro, since there are no amazingly overpowered units that shine when microed well. There are no units with the "do or die" feel to it, thus outside of basic kiting, battle positioning (further weakened by lack of a HGA), and simple tricks - the game will always be about army composition and how well you can macro. After playing the beta for a few days, I get this same feeling. When I enter a battle, I feel the impact of my micro is less significant than it was before and that the battle is kind of decided before it began. Thus either one side will retreat or lose, and thus in my games its been just back and forths that lead to one big deciding battle. It is so much more fun when there are those "do or die" type of units that make me think "if I put this storm on right, I can win this battle" or the "if I surround and borrow right, I can take his mm force" and if you don't do it right, you lose terribly. This makes calculating the winner of battles less obvious and thus encourages "aggressive" play and harassing. I feel that is severely lacking in SC2 right now. | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 27 2010 15:19 Aerox wrote: I'm gonna have to side with LaLush to put such a mechanic into SC2. The SC2 streams lately made me doze off compared to BW. I didn't realize it was the lack of excitement until now. I tried to be enthusiastic about it but I guess BW is still the superior game. We're just faking enthusiasm here... well, except for people new to SC. Just give it a try, Blizz! Add/edit a few units with the mechanic. Please. And yeah, the old Blizz would always remake the engine and the whole game. But I think it's more likely because of the merger with Activision that it's harder to do this rather than Dustin's fault. The engine was redone in prealpha, not during beta. We are farrrrrrr to far down the development trail to be considering an engine rewrite. | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On April 27 2010 14:16 legendin wrote: 1. A game with simple controls, clear functions, and easy micro will help sell more copies, expand the games popularity, and encourage new gamers. 2. A game with complex controls, nuanced functions, and hard micro will keep the game alive longer, expand replay-ability, and promote professional level gamers. I disagree that some of these are mutually exclusive. Certainly, complex controls and simple controls cannot exist at the same time. But clear functionality can also be nuanced. Take force field. A very simple, clear ability. But it has dozens of uses: blocking ramps (possibly forever), cutting armies in half, keeping melee armies away so you can attack with your ranged units, etc. Plenty of nuance for the pro gamer. And whether or not you do it to maximum efficiency is the difference of maybe a few stalkers coming out alive at the end Oh, it most certainly is not. Proper force field micro is often the difference between victory and defeat. How casual something is is solely measured by how well its learning curve accommodates new players. This means in SC a)How fun it is at a lower level and b)How good matchmaking is. SC1 was no less fun at a lower level then SC2 is, except for some minor quirks. I agree with the premise, but I disagree with your conclusion. SC1 has a very strong skill wall between even the lowest level of competitive play and the highest level of casual play. You could call this the D/D- wall. In order to become D+ as a Zerg, for example, you must learn Muta micro. Period. You don't have to be great at it, but you need minimal proficiency in the concept. And since Muta micro is an arcane concept that requires a nonsensical array of inputs to work correctly, the only way to learn it is to read about it online. You'll never figure out the sequence of inputs and timings necessary otherwise. So the division is between those who spend time researching online and those who don't. So long as SC1's skills are based on arbitrary game engine quirks rather than explicit design, discovering them will be a question of culture rather than learning. If you're part of the TeamLiquid.net community, you can find the tricks and get ahead. If you're not, and you're not part of a similar community, you never will. We do not want to take a step backwards. I passed the 1st grade. At the beginning of 2nd grade, I was held to the standard at the end of 1st grade. And at the beginning of 3rd grade I was held to the standard at the end of 2nd grade, which was FAR beyond the standard I was held to in 1st grade. That's called progress. That's what I want. That's what I want everyone to want so that the quiality of games only goes up over time. Sometime in the 7th grade, I learned about the Bohr model of the atom. In the 11th grade, I was taught the beginnings of Quantum Mechanics, and I learned that the Bohr model was all 100% nonsense. It was a nice approximation, but it didn't jive with reality. This was well known when I was in the 7th grade, but I learned the Bohr model anyway. Sometimes progress means losing things. As long as what is gained is greater than what is lost, things are better. This particular micro scheme is like manual mining for macro. It serves a function, but that function can be served by better mechanics. So you have to cast it aside. In fact, the presence of new features in Starcraft 2 like MBS, Auto-mine, and Smart-casting should be based on the league the game is taking place in and should be an option for custom maps. Blizzard can even design new sets of "challenges" to teach players how to move away from dependence on such features. Yes, it's a radical idea and I'm likely alone in advocating such an approach, but given the original intent of these mechanics (making it easier for casuals), I don't see any reason why such a mechanic should not be implemented. Because single-building select is a stupid mechanic. It has some nice effects for overall gameplay, but it is not the only way to achieve that. Same goes for stupid-cast and manual mining. The whole purpose in making a sequel is to have the freedom to dump bad ideas in favor of better ones that create more interesting gameplay. Now, I'm not a big fan of the current macro mechanics, but I am a fan of the thought behind them. Your problem is a simple failure of imagination. You see SC1 as the ultimate pinnacle of competitive RTS play, and you cannot imagine how you can make a competitive RTS game without duplicating the majority of its mechanics. The simple fact is that you don't have to. SC2 will never be a game which depends heavily on micro, since there are no amazingly overpowered units that shine when microed well. There are no units with the "do or die" feel to it, thus outside of basic kiting, battle positioning (further weakened by lack of a HGA), and simple tricks - the game will always be about army composition and how well you can macro. This is an interesting take on things. So you're suggesting that what SC2 needs are more units that "amazingly overpowered" that "shine when microed well." And you're simultaneously suggesting that SC2 will "never" have this. Have you considered at all that there are 2 more expansions coming, which are likely to include new units? Because it sounds suspiciously like you're saying that all it would take to correct this problem is one or two units that fit your criteria. | ||
|
Kalpman
Sweden406 Posts
| ||
|
s2pid_loser
United States699 Posts
nice argument u have there lalush i'll keep it in mind next time i play | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 27 2010 15:56 NicolBolas wrote: It's not "one or two units" - entire races were built off of amazingly overpowered units. BW didn't add that much to SC in this respect - that is outside of the lurker and possibly the corsair - it just built off of the foundations that SC laid out. I suspect that is what is going to happen with the expansions for SC2 as well. It will just plug the weaknesses in the races that exist at the time. Things like storm, reavers, mines, vultures, archons etc were already present in the game before BW.This is an interesting take on things. So you're suggesting that what SC2 needs are more units that "amazingly overpowered" that "shine when microed well." And you're simultaneously suggesting that SC2 will "never" have this. Have you considered at all that there are 2 more expansions coming, which are likely to include new units? Because it sounds suspiciously like you're saying that all it would take to correct this problem is one or two units that fit your criteria. You can run the argument that SC2 =/= SC and that's fine by me. SC2 is almost solely a macro game, War3 almost solely a micro game and SC the perfect mix of both. I can live with that. | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2983 Posts
I know we're still in the beta but what you point out can't really be denied. How will it affect the metagame on the long run is the issue. I see it as a major problem for televised games because all the cool micro tricks is what made televised starcraft appealing. | ||
|
potatomash3r
Australia417 Posts
But, sc1 was an accident. For them to emulate those same bugs and flaws inherrent in an old engine is unreasonable, its 2010. Despite that micro is still lacking maybe they can change something, i dont know. The state of the game is too macro i.e. the player with the better economy normally wins also micro has been simplified, I think what sc2 needs as you suggested are those 'do or die' units. Its still too early to dismiss SC2 as a flop, it is in a better situation than sc1 was with a better community, financial support (the cash cow that is WoW) and better technology. Its hard not to be optimistic when you love a game and want it to be as awesome as it can be. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On April 27 2010 16:04 Plexa wrote: It's not "one or two units" - entire races were built off of amazingly overpowered units. BW didn't add that much to SC in this respect - that is outside of the lurker and possibly the corsair - it just built off of the foundations that SC laid out. I suspect that is what is going to happen with the expansions for SC2 as well. It will just plug the weaknesses in the races that exist at the time. Things like storm, reavers, mines, vultures, archons etc were already present in the game before BW. You can run the argument that SC2 =/= SC and that's fine by me. SC2 is almost solely a macro game, War3 almost solely a micro game and SC the perfect mix of both. I can live with that. However, the TFT expansion to WC3 basically rewrote the entire damage model for the game. So there's some precedent for Blizzard being willing to make significant changes to their games in expansions. | ||
|
decemvre1
Romania51 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:21 diehilde wrote: The limits of a game should always lie within the player and not within the game imo. As opposed to a previous noob just picking up a nony post and deeming it as the best in the thread... lol... I'll just pick this short line and call it the best in the thread, i feel THIS sumarizez what SC1 IS and what SC2 can NEVER be as long as its JUST art designers, lore writers and programmers who design the game without bringing in progamers. The issue is simple, art designers just want "awesomeness" (yes, lets throw in massive units like thors, colosus. mothership, battlecruiser, ultralisk, carriers, broodlords ETC ETC, which are UNMICROABLE, for crying out loud + now they've made small units almost unmicroable too). While programmers think in a completely different direction than progamers. Progamers think, oh cool here's a difficult thing to do that will separate me from all the noobs provided i have 250+ APM... Programmers think, oh, here's an "unnecesary click" i can remove with my awesome programming, YAAY. Thats like in football saying, hey lets (through programming) make it so that a player who has less stamina and runs less can be just as good as a player who trained harder and has more stamina because there isn't that much in the game for him to run for anyway, so its just mindless running (spamming keyboards in this case). | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2983 Posts
Since they seem to be listening to the community we should really send this to Blizz and see what they can come up with. | ||
|
pRo9aMeR
595 Posts
5/5 A+ ^^ gg no re EDIT: forgot to give my $.02 Although it is well written, the content did include lots of fluff and at times unnecessary attacks. You used 5000 words for what could've been articulated in 2000 words (just random numbers). Great main idea with good use of examples and details, but again, too much fluff. Stick to presenting just your main idea with solid details and more people will back you up. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
Actually I also "felt" something was wrong but had no idea what it was until reading about the "gliding shot". I just felt that the units was "slow in responding to commands" and was thinking that had something to do with the latency of bnet in beta. This was really an "aaahhh... that what's wrong". Fortunately blizz reads TL why there is no need to say "send this to blizz" or "post this on the official forums". | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Shopify Rebellion vs Team Falcon
BASILISK vs Team Liquid
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
MaNa vs Gerald
Rogue vs GuMiho
ByuN vs Spirit
herO vs Solar
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
BSL Team A[vengers]
Dewalt vs Shine
UltrA vs ZeLoT
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
