|
On April 27 2010 18:56 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 18:49 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:41 billyX333 wrote:
I can't help but feel that a lot of the people who 100% disagree w/ the OP didn't play BW long enough or competitively enough to genuinely appreciate the mechanics and the extremely high ceiling on the game.
I kind of chuckle each time I hear "oh but there is micro! different micro!"
Speed hydra micro in BW essentially sums up of all the types of micro in SC2, nothing special
anybody can micro hydras if they were trying
Micro in BW is everything SC2 is plus so so much more
I have yet to see a micro game/maneuver where I'll gasp and admit "i can't do that and probably never will be able to do as effectively as he"
A great majority of the micro in sc2 is extremely easy and takes no practice whatsoever to perfect.
I don't know what you classify as 100% disagreement, but Nony very strongly disagreed with the OP. What numerical value you will attribute to that I'm not sure. Then again, maybe Nony haven't played enough BW, and/or on a high enough level for your taste. ... he even said he agreed about the moving attack but disliked the tone of the post
On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. But a ton of the conclusions and ideas surrounding this core idea are pretty bad.
I think my description that he disagree strongly with the OP is quite accurate.
|
|
|
On April 27 2010 19:00 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 18:56 billyX333 wrote:On April 27 2010 18:49 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:41 billyX333 wrote:
I can't help but feel that a lot of the people who 100% disagree w/ the OP didn't play BW long enough or competitively enough to genuinely appreciate the mechanics and the extremely high ceiling on the game.
I kind of chuckle each time I hear "oh but there is micro! different micro!"
Speed hydra micro in BW essentially sums up of all the types of micro in SC2, nothing special
anybody can micro hydras if they were trying
Micro in BW is everything SC2 is plus so so much more
I have yet to see a micro game/maneuver where I'll gasp and admit "i can't do that and probably never will be able to do as effectively as he"
A great majority of the micro in sc2 is extremely easy and takes no practice whatsoever to perfect.
I don't know what you classify as 100% disagreement, but Nony very strongly disagreed with the OP. What numerical value you will attribute to that I'm not sure. Then again, maybe Nony haven't played enough BW, and/or on a high enough level for your taste. ... he even said he agreed about the moving attack but disliked the tone of the post Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. But a ton of the conclusions and ideas surrounding this core idea are pretty bad. I think my description that he disagree strongly with the OP is quite accurate.
...and he clarified
On April 27 2010 09:33 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:26 Lollersauce wrote:On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. -_- That's the main point... So you pretty much disagree with almost everything while agreeing with the core of the argument? Can't go wrong with that I suppose... Yeah I'm saying he went waaaaaaay too far talking about design philosophy, game engines, how and why SC:BW was such a good game, etc. It was a bunch of bullshit that will make it easy for a Blizzard employee reading it get a bad feeling. A straight article about how the mechanics of moving shot micro worked in SC:BW along with a reason why it was so great for everyone (healthy for competition, fun to use, fun to watch) and a quick proof that it doesn't really exist in SC2 would have been great.
he said plainly that hes alright w/ moving attack
seems to me his primary disliking of the post was the tone
seriously, you're trying way too hard to find an argument
|
On April 27 2010 18:50 Navane wrote:
" Many people throughout these years we’ve enjoyed with Starcraft have argued the stance that Blizzard managing to balance Starcraft as well as they did must have been a fluke of cosmic proportions. "
what?
that's my stance too
|
On April 27 2010 19:04 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 19:00 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:56 billyX333 wrote:On April 27 2010 18:49 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:41 billyX333 wrote:
I can't help but feel that a lot of the people who 100% disagree w/ the OP didn't play BW long enough or competitively enough to genuinely appreciate the mechanics and the extremely high ceiling on the game.
I kind of chuckle each time I hear "oh but there is micro! different micro!"
Speed hydra micro in BW essentially sums up of all the types of micro in SC2, nothing special
anybody can micro hydras if they were trying
Micro in BW is everything SC2 is plus so so much more
I have yet to see a micro game/maneuver where I'll gasp and admit "i can't do that and probably never will be able to do as effectively as he"
A great majority of the micro in sc2 is extremely easy and takes no practice whatsoever to perfect.
I don't know what you classify as 100% disagreement, but Nony very strongly disagreed with the OP. What numerical value you will attribute to that I'm not sure. Then again, maybe Nony haven't played enough BW, and/or on a high enough level for your taste. ... he even said he agreed about the moving attack but disliked the tone of the post On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. But a ton of the conclusions and ideas surrounding this core idea are pretty bad. I think my description that he disagree strongly with the OP is quite accurate. ...and he clarified Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:33 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 27 2010 09:26 Lollersauce wrote:On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. -_- That's the main point... So you pretty much disagree with almost everything while agreeing with the core of the argument? Can't go wrong with that I suppose... Yeah I'm saying he went waaaaaaay too far talking about design philosophy, game engines, how and why SC:BW was such a good game, etc. It was a bunch of bullshit that will make it easy for a Blizzard employee reading it get a bad feeling. A straight article about how the mechanics of moving shot micro worked in SC:BW along with a reason why it was so great for everyone (healthy for competition, fun to use, fun to watch) and a quick proof that it doesn't really exist in SC2 would have been great. he said plainly that hes alright w/ moving attack seems to me his primary disliking of the post was the tone seriously, you're trying way too hard to find an argument
He is saying how Lalush could had made the argument for his case better. He doesn't say that whatever Lalush is trying to argue is correct.
|
On April 27 2010 19:15 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 19:04 billyX333 wrote:On April 27 2010 19:00 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:56 billyX333 wrote:On April 27 2010 18:49 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:41 billyX333 wrote:
I can't help but feel that a lot of the people who 100% disagree w/ the OP didn't play BW long enough or competitively enough to genuinely appreciate the mechanics and the extremely high ceiling on the game.
I kind of chuckle each time I hear "oh but there is micro! different micro!"
Speed hydra micro in BW essentially sums up of all the types of micro in SC2, nothing special
anybody can micro hydras if they were trying
Micro in BW is everything SC2 is plus so so much more
I have yet to see a micro game/maneuver where I'll gasp and admit "i can't do that and probably never will be able to do as effectively as he"
A great majority of the micro in sc2 is extremely easy and takes no practice whatsoever to perfect.
I don't know what you classify as 100% disagreement, but Nony very strongly disagreed with the OP. What numerical value you will attribute to that I'm not sure. Then again, maybe Nony haven't played enough BW, and/or on a high enough level for your taste. ... he even said he agreed about the moving attack but disliked the tone of the post On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. But a ton of the conclusions and ideas surrounding this core idea are pretty bad. I think my description that he disagree strongly with the OP is quite accurate. ...and he clarified On April 27 2010 09:33 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 27 2010 09:26 Lollersauce wrote:On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. -_- That's the main point... So you pretty much disagree with almost everything while agreeing with the core of the argument? Can't go wrong with that I suppose... Yeah I'm saying he went waaaaaaay too far talking about design philosophy, game engines, how and why SC:BW was such a good game, etc. It was a bunch of bullshit that will make it easy for a Blizzard employee reading it get a bad feeling. A straight article about how the mechanics of moving shot micro worked in SC:BW along with a reason why it was so great for everyone (healthy for competition, fun to use, fun to watch) and a quick proof that it doesn't really exist in SC2 would have been great. he said plainly that hes alright w/ moving attack seems to me his primary disliking of the post was the tone seriously, you're trying way too hard to find an argument He is saying how Lalush could had made the argument for his case better. He doesn't say that whatever Lalush is trying to argue is correct.
we're cluttering the thread, do you want me to explain to you in a PM?
He said he doesn't disagree with lalush's main point
but he dislikes the tone of the OP because it could potentially make any blizz employee reading feel bad about his work
Its been established, a lot of people agree w/ the primary point but disliked his cheap shots at browder and blizzard workers
|
On April 27 2010 19:21 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 19:15 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 19:04 billyX333 wrote:On April 27 2010 19:00 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:56 billyX333 wrote:On April 27 2010 18:49 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 18:41 billyX333 wrote:
I can't help but feel that a lot of the people who 100% disagree w/ the OP didn't play BW long enough or competitively enough to genuinely appreciate the mechanics and the extremely high ceiling on the game.
I kind of chuckle each time I hear "oh but there is micro! different micro!"
Speed hydra micro in BW essentially sums up of all the types of micro in SC2, nothing special
anybody can micro hydras if they were trying
Micro in BW is everything SC2 is plus so so much more
I have yet to see a micro game/maneuver where I'll gasp and admit "i can't do that and probably never will be able to do as effectively as he"
A great majority of the micro in sc2 is extremely easy and takes no practice whatsoever to perfect.
I don't know what you classify as 100% disagreement, but Nony very strongly disagreed with the OP. What numerical value you will attribute to that I'm not sure. Then again, maybe Nony haven't played enough BW, and/or on a high enough level for your taste. ... he even said he agreed about the moving attack but disliked the tone of the post On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. But a ton of the conclusions and ideas surrounding this core idea are pretty bad. I think my description that he disagree strongly with the OP is quite accurate. ...and he clarified On April 27 2010 09:33 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 27 2010 09:26 Lollersauce wrote:On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. -_- That's the main point... So you pretty much disagree with almost everything while agreeing with the core of the argument? Can't go wrong with that I suppose... Yeah I'm saying he went waaaaaaay too far talking about design philosophy, game engines, how and why SC:BW was such a good game, etc. It was a bunch of bullshit that will make it easy for a Blizzard employee reading it get a bad feeling. A straight article about how the mechanics of moving shot micro worked in SC:BW along with a reason why it was so great for everyone (healthy for competition, fun to use, fun to watch) and a quick proof that it doesn't really exist in SC2 would have been great. he said plainly that hes alright w/ moving attack seems to me his primary disliking of the post was the tone seriously, you're trying way too hard to find an argument He is saying how Lalush could had made the argument for his case better. He doesn't say that whatever Lalush is trying to argue is correct. we're cluttering the thread, do you want me to explain to you in a PM? He said he doesn't disagree with lalush's main point but he dislikes the tone of the OP because it could potentially make any blizz employee reading feel bad about his work Its been established, a lot of people agree w/ the primary point but disliked his cheap shots at browder and blizzard workers
Just pinpoint where in the last post you quoted he says that he agree with whatever point Lalush tried to make, and I'm happy.
|
Bad things first: It sounds like some whiny Protoss talking
But the good thing is, theres something right to it. The Units lack control because of this animations, that "are victims of modernisation". Everyone expected huge fatass animations. The Way they implemented them sucks  .
I want a Unit that i mikro back to turn immediatelly not running in some circles dancing before the enemy and then coming home half dead.
IF you can write some unbiased comments i´ll sign a battlenet post any time.
|
he said
"The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point."
A person responded and said, but that is the MAIN point so how can you disagree w/ everything?
then he clarified and said he doesn't disagree w/ moving shot but would have rather he not talk so much about design philosophy and game engines
and if you'll look back at the OP
the discussion about design philosophy is where he took a large portion of his cheap shots at dustin browder and blizzard in general
Essentially, I believe nony doesn't disagree w/ moving attack but disliked the OP overall
not for the core of the argument, but for the way it was conveyed
|
True micro has become severely less important.
|
Interesting and well researched article, I found this to be a pretty entertaining read. But I disagree with your definition of an ideal RTS game being a game which emphasizes on mechanics over strategy though... sure, it is very difficult to be able to micro many different types of units at the same time, not to mention having to keep up your macro as well, but i personally enjoy the positioning of an army, the timing of the attack and the response to the information you get from scouting your opponent more than the battle of who is more mechanically perfect and can lay down his buildings at the exact right timing, or have an effective apm of 180 or higher.
To me, RTS are games with more emphasis on calculations based on information and quick rational decision making while under fire, not games where your reflex and speed/precision over the keyboard/mouse get put to the test.
Think of it this way, a good player with great micro is effectively a commander with superior soldiers compared to one without, but the beauty and art of war is to be able to overcome your weaker army strength by making use of effective strategies to maximize your army's potential.
I mean, it doesn't matter how hard a terran tries to train his body, he's not going to be taking down a protoss zealot in hand to hand combat. That's why they use guns.
|
On April 27 2010 19:29 billyX333 wrote:
he said
"The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point."
A person responded and said, but that is the MAIN point so how can you disagree w/ everything?
then he clarified and said he doesn't disagree w/ moving shot but would have rather he not talk so much about design philosophy and game engines
and if you'll look back at the OP
the discussion about design philosophy is where he took a large portion of his cheap shots at dustin browder and blizzard in general
Essentially, I believe nony doesn't disagree w/ moving attack but disliked the OP overall
not for the core of the argument, but for the way it was conveyed
That wasn't the post you quoted to back up your argument with to start with. Also a "moving shot" for flying units wasn't Lalush's main point, it was a small part of his point. So Nony agrees to a small part with that Lalush is trying to say, hence why I used "strongly disagreed with" and not "completely disagreed with".
This might feel like arguing semantics, but it showcase how important reading comprehension is.
|
|
|
On April 27 2010 19:34 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 19:29 billyX333 wrote:
he said
"The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point."
A person responded and said, but that is the MAIN point so how can you disagree w/ everything?
then he clarified and said he doesn't disagree w/ moving shot but would have rather he not talk so much about design philosophy and game engines
and if you'll look back at the OP
the discussion about design philosophy is where he took a large portion of his cheap shots at dustin browder and blizzard in general
Essentially, I believe nony doesn't disagree w/ moving attack but disliked the OP overall
not for the core of the argument, but for the way it was conveyed That wasn't the post you quoted to back up your argument with to start with. Also a "moving shot" for flying units wasn't Lalush's main point, it was a small part of his point. So Nony agrees to a small part with that Lalush is trying to say, hence why I used "strongly disagreed with" and not "completely disagreed with". This might feel like arguing semantics, but it showcase how important reading comprehension is.
Oh please
You're first response to my post was bitterly sarcastic and now you're trying to question my reading comprehension
Nony clarified what he disliked about the post
which was the discussion about design philosophy and game engines
(which I and a lot of people thought was quite unnecessary to the primary argument)
He clearly clarified and didn't argue the fact that he agreed with the MAIN point of the argument
edit - btw i could go in depth on how your interpretation of his 3rd response was inaccurate if you'd like
if you want to make this a trivial and petty argument about reading comprehension
He is saying how Lalush could had made the argument for his case better. He doesn't say that whatever Lalush is trying to argue is correct.
..you also used the word "correct" in one of your responses while referring to an opinion
I dont think anybody is arguing whether anything is incorrect or correct
we're arguing which is better vs worse
perhaps we shall argue this as well?
|
On April 27 2010 19:08 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 18:50 Navane wrote:
" Many people throughout these years we’ve enjoyed with Starcraft have argued the stance that Blizzard managing to balance Starcraft as well as they did must have been a fluke of cosmic proportions. "
what? that's my stance too
Oh lol I finally get it
Many people [throughout these years we’ve enjoyed with Starcraft] have argued the stance that Blizzard managing to balance Starcraft [as well as they did] must have been a fluke of cosmic proportions.
I first read it like this:
Many people [throughout these years] we’ve enjoyed with Starcraft, have argued the stance that Blizzard managing to balance Starcraft, as well as they did must have been a fluke of cosmic proportions.
We enjoyed sc with many people throughout the years. They argued blizzard balanced the game. They also ("as well") [did] must have been a fluke of cosmic proportions.
|
sry i dislike 99% fo this post and think lalush is complety wrong... perhaps cause he get owned so hard so often in sc2 ? 
|
On April 27 2010 19:38 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 19:34 Eury wrote:On April 27 2010 19:29 billyX333 wrote:
he said
"The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point."
A person responded and said, but that is the MAIN point so how can you disagree w/ everything?
then he clarified and said he doesn't disagree w/ moving shot but would have rather he not talk so much about design philosophy and game engines
and if you'll look back at the OP
the discussion about design philosophy is where he took a large portion of his cheap shots at dustin browder and blizzard in general
Essentially, I believe nony doesn't disagree w/ moving attack but disliked the OP overall
not for the core of the argument, but for the way it was conveyed That wasn't the post you quoted to back up your argument with to start with. Also a "moving shot" for flying units wasn't Lalush's main point, it was a small part of his point. So Nony agrees to a small part with that Lalush is trying to say, hence why I used "strongly disagreed with" and not "completely disagreed with". This might feel like arguing semantics, but it showcase how important reading comprehension is. Oh please You're first response to my post was bitterly sarcastic and now you're trying to question my reading comprehension Nony clarified what he disliked about the post which was the discussion about design philosophy and game engines (which I and a lot of people thought was quite unnecessary to the primary argument) He clearly clarified and didn't argue the fact that he agreed with the MAIN point of the argument
I thought it was pretty obvious that Nony made it clear, that not only did he disagree with how Lalush worded his arguments, but he also disagreed with much of the actual content.
Anyway enough argument about what Nony did, or didn't say - he can speak for himself just fine.
|
This game just doesn't feel the same without micro...
|
Interesting read.
The gliding shot part is completely true, although I had never really realized it. Poor control (regardless of where it comes from, engine or the player) can only be ameliorated with numbers. Hence, the player hesitates engaging in an air battle with only a few phoenixes; and if he does, he's surely screwed. I just watched Nony on HDH Invitational game 1 and it's so obvious there!
The implications of moving shot are huge, though. One unit with moving shot (on any of the 3 races) is going to dominate if there are no counterparts (think Corsair vs Wraith vs Mutalisk), and that's a sensitive issue. I cannot really understand why - in SC2 we're given all these new units to play with, but their numbers are kind of underwhelming...I suspect it's because the game has been "divided" in 3 parts, although who can be certain of that? At any rate, I think the engine can do it - it's no biggie, and they've done it 11 years ago, so...
Anyway, I like the game just the way it is. Being different from SCBW is not a bad thing really, unless we're worried about its marketability and tournament value, and I'm kinda sad to say I don't care about that anymore.
|
SC2 is the CS: Source of StarCraft. A fun little diversion, but ultimately you return to the superior original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
