EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ghosthunter
United States414 Posts
| ||
|
BalloonFight
United States2007 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. this is irrelevant to his argument. It "was" that way and thats all that matters. Whether it was purposeful or not is not important. Additionally, I'm sure they can emulate a "buggy" code from 1998 in 2010. | ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:04 zazen wrote: SC2 takes pretty much no skill. It doesn't mean that SC2 sucks. It's fun as hell, but just insanely easy to play when compared to BW. I mean, my D- friend beat Nony in SC2... Blizzard believes that making the game much easier to play will make it more popular, and they are probably right... BW is gone, and no game will ever be as hard to play as BW was because it's not something marketable anymore. Ah so much truth in this post, the only exception being "BW is gone". BW isn't gone, not until all the leagues shut down, and I pray that never happens. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
Do we have conclusive evidence to support this? No, not really. But somewhere in our hearts we know it to be true. We feel in our hearts, without being able to explain it, that Starcraft 2 is a game where one’s strategic choices make up for more than one’s individual skill. Somewhere all of us get the feeling that the build orders we choose are of greater importance than the way we micro. That the number of units we produce is of greater significance than the way we control them. Frankly put: that Starcraft 2 requires less skill. The article could do with less paragraphs like this. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
| ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:07 BalloonFight wrote: this is irrelevant to his argument. It "was" that way and thats all that matters. Whether it was purposeful or not is not important. Additionally, I'm sure they can emulate a "buggy" code from 1998 in 2010. Game engines have their limits... | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
"moving shot" was not the only design flaw in the sc1 engine that contributed largely to competitive skill differences. A myriad of issues and poor design paved the way for all competitive sc1. Scarab AI, ALL UNIT pathing AI, pushing units past minerals, air unit clumping when teaming with units off screen, the list goes on. You guys really think that Blizz in the development of SC1 decided: Hey, lets make hold position fire faster than attack move and skip the de-acceleration sequence before firing and then don't document it. Or: hey, let's make it so that air units stack when they have something grouped with them off screen. Does that sound realistic to you? Even though by fixing all these issues, sc2 loses its skill gradient, it is completely unrealistic to expect the design flaws from sc1 to carry to sc2. | ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
Great read. On April 27 2010 09:09 zomgzergrush wrote: The basis of this entire article though is criticizing that a design flaw from bw is not in sc2. "moving shot" was not the only design flaw in the sc1 engine that contributed largely to competitive skill differences. A myriad of issues and poor design paved the way for all competitive sc1. Scarab AI, ALL UNIT pathing AI, pushing units past minerals, air unit clumping when teaming with units off screen, the list goes on. You guys really think that Blizz in the development of SC1 decided: Hey, lets make hold position fire faster than attack move and skip the de-acceleration sequence before firing and then don't document it. Or: hey, let's make it so that air units stack when they have something grouped with them off screen. Does that sound realistic to you? Even though by fixing all these issues, sc2 loses its skill gradient, it is completely unrealistic to expect the design flaws from sc1 to carry to sc2. Then why don't blizzard take the design flaw and actually incorporated into SC2 as they are suppossed to be to increase the skill level. | ||
|
iko
New Zealand137 Posts
| ||
|
NegativeSC
35 Posts
| ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
vilg
Denmark413 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:08 Jyvblamo wrote: I disagree with most of the points this article is trying to make, though I agree with many of its analysis of details, especially moving shot vs gliding shot. The article could do with less paragraphs like this. I would agree with this. You're so absolutely bloody right on all the changes your positing, but remember, the tones intended purpose is for developers, and if I were Dustin, I'd be a bit peeved to read something like that. It isn't that SC2 isn't good, it is, but its lost some of the qualities that made BW awesome, like the sheer amount of control a player could apply to his units. I think removing some of the confrontational tone would greatly improve the chances of the suggestions you're positing being implemented in some degree. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:03 zomgzergrush wrote: Well no need to refrain from any statements if they're true... Ingrate. >:[ | ||
|
sup3rchan
Canada127 Posts
| ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
| ||
|
Teejing
Germany1360 Posts
| ||
|
HaruHaru
United States988 Posts
| ||
|
Ranix
United States666 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:04 zazen wrote: I mean, my D- friend beat Nony in SC2... I understand it is a hyperbole, but come on man! | ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4521 Posts
 | ||
| ||
