EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MagisterMan
Sweden525 Posts
| ||
|
InnerPartySystem
Netherlands49 Posts
| ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
 I always thought sc2 felt more like war3 with no heroes and better macro than an actual sequel to sc1 due to how unresponsive everything feels without moving shot, and generally long attack animations. | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
On April 27 2010 14:14 LunarC wrote: As you can see, these are not micro "tricks" we are talking about. This is REAL micro. THIS is what we are talking about. This link exemplifies what sc2 lacks that BW has and sc2 should have. I had no idea who would win for a good 6-7 minutes, and it was the same battle. Each reinforcement wave brought a chance for a different player to turn the tide of battle and end it right there. Who could snipe tanks, who could spread marines or target clumps of marines, snipe reavers/shuttles all had the potential to change the battle and therefore the game. The list goes on and on. There was tension the whole game from 16 minutes on because the result at the end would depend entirely on each player's skill. Everyone please watch it. You will not be disappointed, even for purely entertainment reasons. I've seen this game before and watching it again made me tense up and stare at the screen in amazement. What sc2 lacks is, as stated by many people, the ability for micromanagement to turn the tide of battle. Lalush's post touches on a small part of this, however, I think Waxangel's newspost about the lack of "overpowered units" is spot on. The battle you just witnessed above can not be replicated in starcraft 2. There will be no clutch swarm to prevent your units from simultaneously exploding or one tank that prevents your opponent from using his reavers to hit a clump of 8 marines that would be game ending or a beautiful marine spread that will completely reverse a battle from a decisive defeat to an overwhelming victory. What ever you do, you can not control the outcome of battles a fraction the amount that you could in brood war. A B- player will probably have similar macro capabilities as ret in broodwar. However, there's a significant difference between ret with a 2 defilers, 5 lurkers and 12 lings and a B- player with those same units. In starcraft 2, there would be virtually no difference. The B- player can have the same 12 hydras and 15 roaches that ret has in sc2 and the difference is minimal. In every SCBW matchup, there was some type of volatile factor that depended a lot on the player's skill. In TvP it would be how well mines were placed and tanks spread out or if you could hit that one EMP that would save 4 of your tanks from being stasis'd. In ZvT/TvZ, a swarm or a marine spread is the difference between winning and losing a battle. In PvZ/ZvP, where you placed your storms or how well you spread your units to avoid the storms or how many of your zealots were wasted to lurkers was critical. I could go on with the mirror matchups as well. The ease of macro combined with the lack of macro makes the skill ceiling significantly lower. What won many games in high level brood war games was a combination of good build orders, macro, micro, and multitasking. Sc2 has basically eliminated significant micro and has made macro so easy a D player such as myself can do it. That also translates to being able to spend my time catching up in multitask to the the higher level players because I can macro with 5shhhhhhhrrrrrrhhhh and I can micro with "1a click". The least they can do is bring back micro to give players something to do. I also personally think the auto surround severely limits what they can do to improve the game because they are forced to nerf so many units (like the zergling) just because the perfect micro would make its broodwar counterpart amazingly strong, and as a result, they can only tweak unit stats and make hard counters, which don't address the problem at all. It's 6AM and my thoughts are all jumbled and terribly organized, but let me summarize what I'm trying to say. I agree that the moving shot needs to return to the game because not having it prevents the player from having any control over the outcome of a battle, however, the underlying problem is more with the type of units in sc2. There is no lurker or overpowered cheap mnm or swarm or storm or seige tank for players to turn the tide with. All the units currently in sc2 are extremely straightforward (with the exception of maybe forcefield) and leave little leeway for a player to do anything but "1a click". There needs to be some more units that allow the possibility of powerful effects with the correct micro. This will improve the micro problems that people are complaining about. | ||
|
Boci
Hungary2 Posts
| ||
|
FoxSpirit
Austria160 Posts
But by removing it you are changing the game, not making it suck. It's Starcraft, Part 2, not 1.5, the graphic update. You may not like it but I feel the game becomes more strategic when you can't pull off control stunts like that. It's like controlling my pawn better so it kills the knight which was set out to kill it. A nice little feat but in the end it simply shifts game balance if the knight can't be controlled similarly to balance that out. Sure, it becomes more of a "attack or flee" scenario than gliding your units. If you wanted moving shot, you could simply hardcode it into the units. Hellions had that at one point. It was taken out as a conscious decision. If you do not like it, okay, stick to SC:BW. Arguing your love for it with such a bloated opening post for what could be argued in much less simply makes it look pompous. Fox out | ||
|
Toyman69
Canada100 Posts
| ||
|
Brad
2754 Posts
On April 27 2010 20:07 marshmallow wrote: SC2 is the CS: Source of StarCraft. A fun little diversion, but ultimately you return to the superior original. The problem with that example is that SC:BW isn't big in the West, compared to what CS 1.6 was. SC2 is already bigger than BW ever was (Popularity wise.). | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
On April 27 2010 20:35 FoxSpirit wrote: I don't get it. The argument of the op is why moving shot is great. Ok. But by removing it you are changing the game, not making it suck. It's Starcraft, Part 2, not 1.5, the graphic update. You may not like it but I feel the game becomes more strategic when you can't pull off control stunts like that. It's like controlling my pawn better so it kills the knight which was set out to kill it. A nice little feat but in the end it simply shifts game balance if the knight can't be controlled similarly to balance that out. Sure, it becomes more of a "attack or flee" scenario than gliding your units. If you wanted moving shot, you could simply hardcode it into the units. Hellions had that at one point. It was taken out as a conscious decision. If you do not like it, okay, stick to SC:BW. Arguing your love for it with such a bloated opening post for what could be argued in much less simply makes it look pompous. Fox out It's REAL TIME strategy, not just strategy. If you want a pure strategy game, play chess. Do you really want turn based starcraft? RTS tests a human's mechanical limits as well as his strategical ones. That's like making a rule in basketball so that players can't move or pass because you think shot accuracy is what should be important in basketball. | ||
|
J1.au
Australia3596 Posts
On April 27 2010 20:40 Brad wrote: The problem with that example is that SC:BW isn't big in the West, compared to what CS 1.6 was. SC2 is already bigger than BW ever was (Popularity wise.). Uh, not it isn't. You forget how huge BW was when it came out. | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
edit: and wtf strategy skills, to have "strategy skills" is as easy as learning what counter whats, steal a BO and scout. Theres not much skill in that | ||
|
snpnx
Germany454 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:05 Excalibur_Z wrote: This post is just too long to respond to in full. It's also completely off-base. You make the false assumption that bugs from BW such as true moving shots were intended. It's arguable whether that should be added back in because it does widen the skill gap which is always good. Mutas are already excellent indirect containment and harassment units, they would be even more powerful if their BW incarnations carried over. For all you know, this was a conscious decision by Blizzard. You make the false assumption that the Blizzard design philosophy has changed pre-SC versus SC2 with no supporting evidence. Rob Pardo, the VP of game design and key figure in the development of BW, has always been consistent in his design approach. Succinctly, it's "make everything overpowered" along with "purity of purpose" and it's short and simple. You make the false assumption that the SC engine was "great" (with regard to design intent versus SC2) when in fact it has ludicrous amounts of bugs. Ask anyone on this website and they'll agree, a large part of the appeal of BW was the exploitation of bugs in the engine. Mineral-click, dropship dodging, moving shots, mineral-hopping, the list goes on and on. Some of these were carried over to SC2 because they are intended to be used in SC2, and some were removed. We don't know whether that was intended. I'll respond to the rest of the post with generalities that still apply: So much of your post is hating SC2 because it's not SC, and that mentality just has to disappear. I think you're giving Browder too much heat as well, it's pretty clear he's got the correct intentions and he's not doing the balancing alone. Lastly, this is a beta and we can expect some pretty drastic changes as we progress. I do mostly agree to this. This is a different game, and while being the next installment in the SC series, making it work exactly like SC was never Blizzards goal. The SC engine was bugged as hell, and yes, it did very good to competitive gaming, but from a developers point of view, you want your code to be as bugfree as possible, because not all bugs will be as great as Moving Shot, they might even render the game completely unplayable, if they give an imbalance which is to great (and bugs can be very hard to find in code, even if you know how to reproduce them). And I still feel that people are comparing eggs and apples. You guys are looking at a BETA and compare it with a game that has 10+ years of active playing, and a hell of a time as a competitively played game. Of course players nowadays have a whole different look on the game compared to back then, but I still think people need to give it a bit time to see what is actually possible within the game and what isn't. I'm sure there will be bugs found which will either have to be patched or enrich the game, but now is really to early to proclaim SC2 a fail (or win, for that matter) for competitive playing. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
On April 27 2010 20:30 Boci wrote: SC2 requires more strategy decision than sc1 which is good. Strategy skills dominate over arcade skills. intelectual troll is intelectual | ||
|
Kylig
Sweden41 Posts
 To be honest I dont see Activision-Blizzard fixing this, they will attract the casual players and the european guys get to feel good at Starcraft for once compared to the asians since SC2 is maxed out at roughly a third of the apm BW had? Its all Activision-blizzard. This mainstream-dumb-it-down-syndrome is really getting me on my nerves!! I mean, I really felt like I was playing WOW allover again when I was playing 2s with my friend, its mostly about countercomping, picking the OP buildorder of the month and abusing it until it gets nerfed and some other crazy shit Blizzard shat out gets OP and you can start abusing it. sadface One more thing I think anyone who watched some BW replays of korean pro leagues can relate to this. When I was watching huskystarcraft BW commentaries I was in awe and just blown away by the skill the koreans had how the insane APM and control I mean its just crazy and I got all exited when I saw the cool moves they did. However when I was watching the HDH invitational I was like " meh.. i could do that" Its nothing special watching some old guy (whitera?) cheesing with fast voidrays. There is NO skill in that, they are just overpowered after the buff against marines they got. NO MICRO at all decided 2 "topgames" in a row. Just plain abusing an overpowered cheesy strat thats it. I could do that, you could to and you know it. This goes on and on in all games pretty much, I dont watch replays on husky anymore, its boring. Apparently MICRO to blizzard is putting up forcefields, pressing stimpack and kiting, blinking. I could train a freaking retarded monkey do that for me!! | ||
|
heynes
Germany201 Posts
I just deleted my really long post. because i decided it is not worthy to be in here. others should do the same  | ||
|
Fizban140
Korea (South)129 Posts
| ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On April 27 2010 20:40 Brad wrote: The problem with that example is that SC:BW isn't big in the West, compared to what CS 1.6 was. SC2 is already bigger than BW ever was (Popularity wise.). true - if sc2 wouldn't be so hyped atm and didn't have very nice online-component, I probably would never have played nearly 800 games so far. I just think that SC2 is gonna be the biggest RTS no matter how good it is, so if I wanna play an RTS, I probably be best served to play SC2, just because of the huge community it already has, although it's only in Beta. If you just look at the game itself, it's far inferior to SC:BW and everyone who say otherwise has enver really played SC:BW. I really hope that either Blizz does some major changes to SC2 or that ppl won't just blindly choose SC2 over every other game, just because it's supposed to be the next big thing. Cuz atm. SC2 is just nowhere near as good as it should be: It's boring, dumbed-down, bad as a spectator-sport, the controls are not very good, most of the Units are boring, no highground-advantage, ridiculous hard-counter-system etc. I feel if the hype dies out a bit on SC2, ppl from SC1 will go back to SC:BW, at least they should... | ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote: I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone | ||
|
Mo_oN
Germany82 Posts
| ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote: warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone Unfortunately, what many of us want is not just a great game, because starcraft 2 will obviously be a great game, but a game that will last more than 12 years competitively (something wc3 failed at). Some of the things that give games like brood war that longevity is a high skill ceiling, especially mechanical, which sc2 lacks. It's not a clone just because it requires the same skill set to be good at it. | ||
| ||
