|
Why do people act like they've figured this game out already? It's far too early to say this game is fundamentally flawed. If people had done that with Brood War and Sc1, none of you would have gotten to enjoy the same experience you seem to have trouble with letting go with.
I don't forsee an overhaul of the game coming. So the best thing to do is make the most of what we've got. Sure they could make some changes, but that could also make things worse.
As a wc3 player a game which involved more micro than sc1 or rather micro was the by far main focus point, I do find sc2 could use more micro opportunities. However, as I play this game, more and more are starting to evolve and come to the fore front.
The OP put in a lot of work into this thread, but he could also put some work into being mannered and give GGs to his opponents.
|
On April 27 2010 23:15 baskerville wrote:
The damage system in SC was percentage based. I find that remarkable. And I find that to strengthen my point that moving shot helped balance Starcraft (and that it might also, if implemented, help balance SC2).
Does that make sense?
perfect, and you've got 1 vote from me : moving attacks diversifies the game (why would sc2 be less in that regard?)
it will not make the game ballanced,
imagine now controlling WAY MORE than 11 mutalisks
if they worked just like in sc1, how imba would that be ?
game would pretty much turn into an all-air unit game
this is a new era, that old out-dated UI is been replaced, this is the so-called "problem"
this and the mbs and the auto-mining.
this is why the game has to be remade.
sc:bw is a perfectly ballanced game, but everything you change from sc:bw affects everything else. even the slightest tweak and the ballance is broken.
so there are 2 viable options :
- make a sc:bw clone
or
- make a new and completely different game
I don't see any other solution
|
Great read.
Can't have enough micro really - thats pretty much what i have to say about that.
Limitations should come from the player (ie, max 500 APM), compared to it coming from the game/engine.
|
On April 27 2010 23:31 Erucious wrote:
Great read.
Can't have enough micro really - thats pretty much what i have to say about that.
Limitations should come from the player (ie, max 500 APM), compared to it coming from the game/engine.
game is so fast, no1 can do everything perfect
don't worry, if the game would be limited way under the player's limitations, this means the best players in the world would not lose to one another, especially in mirror matches.
this isn't the case
|
On April 27 2010 23:28 MindRush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 23:15 baskerville wrote:
The damage system in SC was percentage based. I find that remarkable. And I find that to strengthen my point that moving shot helped balance Starcraft (and that it might also, if implemented, help balance SC2).
Does that make sense?
perfect, and you've got 1 vote from me : moving attacks diversifies the game (why would sc2 be less in that regard?) it will not make the game ballanced, imagine now controlling WAY MORE than 11 mutalisks if they worked just like in sc1, how imba would that be ? game would pretty much turn into an all-air unit game this is a new era, that old out-dated UI is been replaced, this is the so-called "problem" this and the mbs and the auto-mining. this is why the game has to be remade. sc:bw is a perfectly ballanced game, but everything you change from sc:bw affects everything else. even the slightest tweak and the ballance is broken. so there are 2 viable options : - make a sc:bw clone or - make a new and completely different game I don't see any other solution
Oh please shut up
you are posting your useles comments all over the place you should be banned for life!
to everyone else, just ignore this poor sob.
|
First of all, starcraft 2 is not SC:Broodwar, second, there is micro in sc2 ; try 6 marines vs 4 zealots. if you are able to win in this scenario there is defently micro in sc2. then you have banshees which have so much dmg, this ability makes it so useful. when i play against toss or zerg or even terran i use banshee to destroy nearby buildings such as pylons, and depots, it takes a good 5 seconds if u have 4-5 banshees. what is this called? this is called micro, not as good as sc1 but this is sc2 and this will be improved greatly. micro in sc2 is possible, just try what i have said in the first three lines....6 marines vs 4 zealots, i did it before u can do it as well  . what i've been doing lately to win games is to build two barracks, one near by my oppenent's base and one in my base then i send like 3 scvs to attack while making marines. 2 marines+3 scvs vs 1 zealots is kind balanced( most toss players will not go 2 gates, they will try to go high tech, this is the only time u do this.), if u micro correctly u have a win because more marines will be arriving while the battle is going. To do this u need micro, macro. AGAIN THERE IS FUKING MICRO AND MACRO IN THE GAME, MACRO IS FAIRLY TOO EASY while micro you have to be able to see when is the right time to micro......Try 4 banshees to destroy pyloons, depots or anything.... it works perfectly. that's right, u cant move around like in sc1 but u can see when you have a better chance of being succesfull at a micro move......SC2 good game so far. JUST DONT LIKE THE FREAKING TVZ,TVZ. zergs seem so fuking OP, but if u put a lot of preasure u can win other than that there is no way u can beat zerg, if u just leave it alone for 7 minutes or more u are F.U.C.K.E.D
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Awesome post, really well thought out and well argued I liked it alot and hope Blizzard spend some time on fixing the issues you brought up.
|
Have to admit I find it pretty funny how some people still keep saying something along the lines of "SC2 isnt SC1". Just because it's not the same game doesn't mean what made SC1 great and so successful (because yes, it's all those details and many more that made it so great and that kept it alive this long) isn't to be expected in SC2.
I'm sorry, but while i'm probably one of the worst players out there, I do enjoy watching good plays and while not able to reproduce them myself, I am able to appreciate them and recognize them when they're there - probably not all of them though, which is what makes the whole thing so great. SC1 has by far the biggest learning curve of all games I've ever seen, SC2 does not give me that feeling at all.
Yes, SC2 is not done yet, yes some things will come along with time and make it better.
However, anyone that knows what he's talking about can agree that what took SC1 so long wasn't just time. Not everyone had a computer in 1998. Only the youngest generation was very much into video games (I can bet most - or at least a large number - of the people here are around 25, if not more). Alot of factors that make judging SC2 after so little time very accurate, because we have not only a reference, but also way enough experience for that.
While it is possible to make it better with patches and all that, basic game mechanics have to be respected.
I would like to thank the OP so very much, as the points he made (although I did not agree with absolutely all of them but well, almost) were very good, and to a newb like me who does not know every single detail about SC1 mechanics, I learned a few things that will definitely help me enjoy VODs that much more.
And to all the SC2 defenders out there : graphics and handling set aside - purely unit-wise, lets assume SC1 had SC2 graphics, would you really play SC2 right now ? Even the "new" feeling of it doesn't compensate for me. And heck, I barely even ever played BW - I played it enough to know units and races pretty good, and since then learned by speccing. I can't even imagine how it feels for people that were able to enjoy having a very good control over everything.
Quite frankly, as I've been speccing alot of BW and alot of WC3 over the past few years, SC2 reminds me of WC3 way more than BW. It's kinda like an improved WC3 actually, without the bullshit upkeep and 100 pop limit.
The "top" players and replays you can see in SC2 don't come even remotely close to the thrill a good BW match can give me. And sure, there's a difference between watching JaeDong or Flash and watching a top euro/am player, but still, I'm fairly sure these players on BW would impress me alot more - because the game would allow them to.
Well, this being said, that won't prevent me from enjoying the Beta and all that, but I'm sincerely hoping they realise that while the OP is a bit offensive at times, he's still very much right.
I mean, especially with the leagues system, it's not like it's problematic to give people massive room for skill - newbs that come in later on will just be facing other newbs. And people like me that hopefully will learn a little will face other people that are around their level. And hey, a good ass-kicking is always a good motivation to learn anyway.
Rant over. 
|
In my opinion the real problem about Starcraft2 is the complete lack of knowledge of the game by the developers. Moving shot is an huge issue but is not the only one. For example, I could make a thread as big about how bad this retarded unit clumping affects the game, or how some of the units in the game belong to the wrong tier (sentries and banelings), or how poorly balanced the game is due to the only fact zerg queen has larva injection. They are just a bunch of very good but common devs who are making an amazing single player game without having given the slightiest research on how a good multi player rts game should be. That fits perfectly with what Dustin said. They cared about everything else other than the graphics and units coolness after they were done with it. It's a game designed completely around its graphics and units design, which is not the most important and fun thing in an RTS. A dish that has a nice look and a poor taste in comparison. And yet they took a countless amount of years to reach this.
|
On April 27 2010 21:27 MindRush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 11:21 diehilde wrote:On April 27 2010 11:09 Tdelamay wrote:
I find it irritating that more APM is linked to better gameplay and entertainment. The game is plenty of fun to watch and play, should we reconsider our stance toward the validity of these sort of micro in the game? It might be some misguided attitude we have toward our game.
If Jaedong didn't transfer over to SC2, it would take away nothing. The players we've seen play so far are a lot of fun to watch. I doubt that having more APM can make the game more exciting. as im a pretty low apm player myself it hurts me to say this but u are incredibly wrong. It would take away a huge deal if JD didnt switch over. And of cus more APM can make a game more exciting if the skill ceiling is high enough. Its like saying players with more speed or stamina dont make a soccer game more exciting. If somebody like JD with a very high effective APM and insane multitasking plays the game he can perform shit like managing creep tumors, macro, micro and dropping several expos at the same time. Would that make the game more exciting? Fuck yeah. Nobody wants the stuff that you see the top players do now to require 400 APM for the same result. But fact of the matter is that the current top players arent on the level of a player like JD. Given JD has the same level of strategic understanding/decision making but has 150 more effective APM and multitasks twice as fast - why shouldnt he be able to pull off insane moves his opponents cant and why on earth shouldnt the game get more exciting as a result of the higher level of play?? The limits of a game should always lie within the player and not within the game imo. this is another type of limitations Sc2 is more like chess, where u have to think more moves ahead of your opponent Sc1 was more like an arcade game, where you could micro your units to get the most of them I really like a guy like Nony, WhiteRa, Nazgul, Ret, MorroW, .......etc. over some guys who just spam commands here and there, and beat you up because they practice 24h a day and don't have a good understanding of the game whatsoever. Nony and WhiteRa are my personal favourites because they can understand the game better than other players, not because they spam a certain command over and over again. They also kick ass :p
I don't get this notion that you don't need to be strategic in sc1. Sc2 might be more strategic, but that's just because you can't actually do anything special with your units and so it's just a number war. That doesn't make the game better to play or more exciting to watch. It will be broken down mathematically into the best builds possible, and you'll just do that every time.
You really think that sc1 progamers don't understand the intricacies of the game and are just beating you by clicking a lot? They have to understand every small detail of their units to be able to get 110% out of them. Understanding how mutalisks move and attack and how they interact with marines and everything else is necessary for you to be able to attempt to do any great muta micro. On top of that understanding you then need to have the ability to actually enter all these commands. It's both of these requirements that make Jaedong's mutas stronger than yours or mine could ever hope to be.
Professional gaming has gone by the name of esports for awhile now. Victory in sports is dependent both on the ability of coaches and players to make good strategic decisions throughout the game as well as the ability to physically outperform their opponent. There's a reason most people would rather watch professional football than chess.
|
On April 27 2010 23:40 Kylig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 23:28 MindRush wrote:On April 27 2010 23:15 baskerville wrote:
The damage system in SC was percentage based. I find that remarkable. And I find that to strengthen my point that moving shot helped balance Starcraft (and that it might also, if implemented, help balance SC2).
Does that make sense?
perfect, and you've got 1 vote from me : moving attacks diversifies the game (why would sc2 be less in that regard?) it will not make the game ballanced, imagine now controlling WAY MORE than 11 mutalisks if they worked just like in sc1, how imba would that be ? game would pretty much turn into an all-air unit game this is a new era, that old out-dated UI is been replaced, this is the so-called "problem" this and the mbs and the auto-mining. this is why the game has to be remade. sc:bw is a perfectly ballanced game, but everything you change from sc:bw affects everything else. even the slightest tweak and the ballance is broken. so there are 2 viable options : - make a sc:bw clone or - make a new and completely different game I don't see any other solution Oh please shut up you are posting your useles comments all over the place you should be banned for life! to everyone else, just ignore this poor sob.
lolz, i always explained what i stated .... unlike you, you are the poor sob here
i have nothing against good arguments and explanation, but admin should ban people for not agreeing with OP? Do you even know what the point of a discussion is?
They should ban every1 who has the following speach :
"Fuck everyone who does not agree with me"
|
I agree with the most in this post , and beacuse this is the way I feel about sc2 it's obvious I've alrdy gone back to playing BW.
U shudn't play a game that doesn't bring you joy
|
On April 27 2010 23:14 MindRush wrote:
remember when Flash lost to a power failure ?
was that a JaeDong ability ?!? so fucking epic
he clicked so fast he made the computer's power short-circuit the entire buiding
what a great player !!!
lol are you stupid? the power failure had nothing to do with sc programming (as you have implied). it was msl's failure.
|
Wow freaking amazing article.
|
Great post! Maybe you could edit it a bit in places, but the issues you talked about were spot on.
|
Only one area where I take exception:
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.
Understanding and implementing a strategy in depth IS skill.
It's not a skill with an obvious physical/twitch component but it is a skill. Chess requires skill, even though there is zero micro.
SC2 might require less fine motor control, but it's hard to say it requires less "skill" when unit choices mean more than ever, and the game moves at a breakneck pace.
I agree though with the general premise that moving shot adds a layer to unit micromanagement that does not exist otherwise, and that SC2 lacks that layer of micro depth.
|
What I would like ask blizzard is if they know what a concept car is and why you rather drive a car that has less limits than being held back by bad "concept". I mean, Vikings, Mothership, Thors etc have really cool concepts but the are in now way as useful as they could be. I'd rather play a game with better mechanics and bad concepts then the other way around. Much like i rather drive a good car then a really cool one which is just terrible at everything else but being cool.
|
Wow, amazing article. I just totally agree, the comparisions like phoenix vs corsair just hurt! Im getting sad of the thought that we're stuck with blob vs blob (okay not that bad but compared to sc1 its pretty bad)
|
On April 27 2010 22:10 Esett wrote:
To the OP:
You my friend are a RETARD. You have no idea how hard it is to design a game, and truth be told from the post you made you don't have the brains to do it either. You pretty much made it clear how little you understand about Starcraft 2 and it's new mechanics.
You do however have way to much time to make long "documented" posts that make no sense.
Fact 1: Starcraft 2 IS NOT and WILL NEVER BE Starcraft 1. Just keep playing Broodwar if you don't like it.
Fact 2: Starcraft 2 is right now in a beta state way more complex and subtle than Starcraft 1 ever was after 10 years of being played by millions of people.
Fact 3: Everybody who agrees with this the OP is a RETARD.
Ofc the rest of us will have the last laugh when a year from launch nobody will be playing Starcraft 1 anymore because Jaedong found a new way to use banelings and Flash found a new way to use ghosts.
My strong opinion is that we should have an IQ test when we register to post here. Like that would ever happen...
The people running this site post the same "ohh how i want Starcraft 1 mechanic X back" shit.
Fucking retards!
Oh yeah I heard the new wow game will not be as the old wow anymore but in fact you and the AI switched places in the game. You need to sell shit equipment and give quests to the AI and watch as they progress. Sounds fun eh?.
If starcraft2 is a "new game" then why don't give it another name, cause IMO starcraft2 does not live up to the name of starcraft
|
On April 27 2010 23:28 MindRush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 23:15 baskerville wrote:
The damage system in SC was percentage based. I find that remarkable. And I find that to strengthen my point that moving shot helped balance Starcraft (and that it might also, if implemented, help balance SC2).
Does that make sense?
perfect, and you've got 1 vote from me : moving attacks diversifies the game (why would sc2 be less in that regard?) it will not make the game ballanced, imagine now controlling WAY MORE than 11 mutalisks if they worked just like in sc1, how imba would that be ? game would pretty much turn into an all-air unit game this is a new era, that old out-dated UI is been replaced, this is the so-called "problem" this and the mbs and the auto-mining. this is why the game has to be remade. sc:bw is a perfectly ballanced game, but everything you change from sc:bw affects everything else. even the slightest tweak and the ballance is broken. so there are 2 viable options : - make a sc:bw clone or - make a new and completely different game I don't see any other solution
So what? Make it so 12 or less mutas have perfect air control, but as you add more mutas to your control group air control suffers from diminishing returns and the flock becomes harder to control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
