EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 38
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8116 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:44 CieZ wrote: I think any of these posts trying to compare SC2 BETA to a game that evolved through patches and a metagame for over 10 years is ridiculous. How long did it take muta stacking to be discovered? I'm sure people didn't install SC1 and start microing their air units to shoot on the move etc etc. It is like Day[9] said in one of his podcasts, if you went back in time to the day before muta stacking was discovered and asked any of the top progamers "Has SC1/BW been totally figured out?" they would probably say "Yeah, we know all the secrets of the game." and then BAM, revolutionary technique. Another example is the game SSBM (Super smash bros melee) the game was COMPLETELY revolutionized years after it was released when Wavedashing was discovered. How can people say that there are no advanced micro techniques in SC2? It is entirely possible, I would even bet money on it, that somewhere down the road some one will discover a micro technique that has a huge impact on game play. Also take a look at WC3 (Not saying wc3 is a good game, just using it as an example). Shortly after the game was released people bashed it for being totally unbalanced, no skill at all, and RPG instead of an RTS etc etc etc. However if you take a look at how much the game evolved simply over time it is basically two completely different games. People reached a level of skill, and discovered things about the game that people never thought would be possible. TLDR: Give SC2 time to evolve, there is a small player pool compared to how many players will be playing the game after release, and a LOT of the players are WoW baddies stuck in copper league that don't know building more than 6 SCVs is good. I bet if we all look back on the beta 5 years from now we will see a totally different game. this is not a good attitude. we should bitch and moan as much as possible as soon as possible. The more we bitch the more likely we are able to get the game "better" (as far what we think better means). The more that we can get blizzard to change the better the game will be in the future. It's just a defeatist attitude to say "well maybe it will be good in 5 years". I dont want to wait 5 years for the game to be fun. BW is out NOW. And if I'm going to be replacing it with a new game it should at LEAST as good. As much as I dont want to admit, I'm going to be stuck playing SC2 for a while (since there will basically be no one left to play with!), at least until everyone migrates back to BW if it turns out SC2 is really is bad. Honestly if I were designing SC2 from the start, I would of made sure there were tons and tons of cool micro tricks in the game similar to muta-stacking and vulture micro, IE intentionally built into the game from the start. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:46 link0 wrote: IMO, Strategy and Tactics > Micro I know as a spectator sport, Micro >> ALL in terms of crowd pleasing. But as a player, I rather outsmart my opponent than out-click them. I like the way sc2 is currently, I can be in the running for plat rank 1 with an average APM of 80. Except that it'll be better for the game in the long run if its actually fun to watch AND play also, your apm will go higher as you play if you want it to. Saying that you'd rather a game not require both good decisions and fast clicking (micro) is being selfish, since that would make it more fun for a lot of people. and if you dont want to get better at the game, then why do you want to be plat rank 1? What significance does it have? If you were, on release, in silver league, and still outsmarting people there instead of outclicking them, wouldnt that make you just as happy? In my opinion, if the game is made to be micro intensive as well as macro intensive and strategy/tactics centered, all levels of gamers would be satisfied, or SHOULD be, since the matchmaking will find someone of equal ability for them to play against anyway. You dont need to worry about 'spending time working to get good at a game', if you want to play casually, theres always the copper/bronze leagues. On April 28 2010 02:49 infrinjinsin wrote: Wasn't it?  I shouldn't have said "BW players should get a grip". Bad choice of words. Perhaps the OP might have better luck finding acceptable game skill ceiling in a more action oriented genre, such as FPS. I just think that the kind of exploits he's talking about for micro are a little silly for an RTS game... But I know nothing with my tiny e-peen and low post count! Yeah, intense micro is pretty silly. Guys, we better stop watching Broodwar at all, it turns out we're just watching silliness. | ||
|
jellyfish
United States149 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:49 infrinjinsin wrote: Wasn't it? I shouldn't have said "BW players should get a grip". Bad choice of words. Perhaps the OP might have better luck finding acceptable game skill ceiling in a more action oriented genre, such as FPS. I just think that the kind of exploits he's talking about for micro are a little silly for an RTS game... But I know nothing with my tiny e-peen and low post count! You're completely missing the point. Removing these "exploits" makes for a less competitive game. When you're talking about the highest levels of competition these little things make huge differences. If you're not going to play that competitively anyway, and you don't have the bw/rts experience to gauge what happens at the highest levels, for what reasons are your opinions credible? You can still play sc2 casually with the "exploits" in there, and honestly with the ladder system you probably won't notice much of a difference. To imply bw players as elitist and irrational, yet impose your casual viewpoint on the subject of competitive gameplay, is hypocritical. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8116 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:55 TheAntZ wrote: Yeah, intense micro is pretty silly. Guys, we better stop watching Broodwar at all, it turns out we're just watching silliness. lol that's gotta be a troll | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On April 27 2010 20:07 marshmallow wrote: SC2 is the Super Smash Bros Brawl of StarCraft. A fun little diversion, but ultimately you return to the superior original. Fixed | ||
|
hoovehand
United Kingdom542 Posts
regardless, broodwar micro evolved over a period of ten years. you can't really compare it to the level of micro we're seeing at ten weeks into SC2 closed beta. in my opinion you're overreacting. through watching replay's of high level competitive games, there's plenty of evidence suggest that micro is still a huge part of the game. not as much as warcraft3, but we're here to play STARCRAFT, not WARCRAFT. warcraft 3 never left ground zero because it was basically a strategy version of world of warcraft. blizzard do not intend to remake broodwar. | ||
|
bendez
Canada283 Posts
| ||
|
infrinjinsin
United States16 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:21 fatduck wrote: "Yarr, I drink beer because I'm a real man, you're all nerds go back to brood war" Bah.. Nerd > Nerd alcoholic I am a total newb, this cannot be denied. I just registered to respond to this thread specifically because the tone was like "so much is WRONG with SC2." But I think pretty much everything about it is frickin awesome. I played a good deal of BW, not enough to get very good though. Here's the thing - why on earth would anyone see only being able to select 12 units is a good thing? Only people who have invested a great deal of time to become masters at working around such a limitation could be so inane, and the moving shot exploits are the same I feel. That's kind of why I said "get a grip" but what I meant was more "take a step back and think objectively". | ||
|
TwilightStar
United States649 Posts
 | ||
|
Miles_Edgeworth
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
Kare
Norway786 Posts
| ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:08 infrinjinsin wrote: Bah.. Nerd > Nerd alcoholic I am a total newb, this cannot be denied. I just registered to respond to this thread specifically because the tone was like "so much is WRONG with SC2." But I think pretty much everything about it is frickin awesome. I played a good deal of BW, not enough to get very good though. Here's the thing - why on earth would anyone see only being able to select 12 units is a good thing? Only people who have invested a great deal of time to become masters at working around such a limitation could be so inane, and the moving shot exploits are the same I feel. That's kind of why I said "get a grip" but what I meant was more "take a step back and think objectively". Did anyone actually say that in this thread? I dont think anyone at all has a problem with unlimited unit selection. If you think objectively, as you put it, you'll realise putting back stuff into sc2 that worked for BW such as the moving shot could only help the game if you simply do not want to use it, then play against gold/silver/bronze/copper players, maintain a good winratio anyway. Since you do seem like a casual player, why would you be concerned about it at all? Its not something you HAVE to do to play the game, just something you'd have to do to play at the highest level, which I doubt you intend to do. | ||
|
4Servy
Netherlands1542 Posts
| ||
|
infrinjinsin
United States16 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:59 jellyfish wrote: You're completely missing the point. Removing these "exploits" makes for a less competitive game. When you're talking about the highest levels of competition these little things make huge differences. If you're not going to play that competitively anyway, and you don't have the bw/rts experience to gauge what happens at the highest levels, for what reasons are your opinions credible? You can still play sc2 casually with the "exploits" in there, and honestly with the ladder system you probably won't notice much of a difference. To imply bw players as elitist and irrational, yet impose your casual viewpoint on the subject of competitive gameplay, is hypocritical. You are correct on every point here. I don't mean to "impose my casual viewpoint" but I think the casual viewpoint is valid. Perhaps not as valid as hardcore, brood war players opinions, but voicing these viewpoints are what these forums are for. If not for the internets, I would have to vent my hypocrisy on my cats.. And it would be wasted on them... I imagine. | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
The clear problem is: every unit in SC2 is acting like a Dragoon in terms of attacking. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:50 Liquid`NonY wrote: Yeah it could randomly freeze and not respond to any command until it receives a "Stop" command. =[ medics too marines too happens all the time | ||
|
infrinjinsin
United States16 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:11 TheAntZ wrote: Did anyone actually say that in this thread? I dont think anyone at all has a problem with unlimited unit selection. If you think objectively, as you put it, you'll realise putting back stuff into sc2 that worked for BW such as the moving shot could only help the game if you simply do not want to use it, then play against gold/silver/bronze/copper players, maintain a good winratio anyway. Since you do seem like a casual player, why would you be concerned about it at all? Its not something you HAVE to do to play the game, just something you'd have to do to play at the highest level, which I doubt you intend to do. I agree with most of what you say here, but I brought up the 12 unit selection thingy as an example of how some passionate BW players could insist upon recreating something that ends up, in retrospect, being a limitation. Unlimited unit selection was a big pill for a lot of BW players to swallow, and some are now happy with it, others may not be. I think it's a useful comparison to the moving shot == micro assertion. A forest for the trees thing if you will. | ||
|
jellyfish
United States149 Posts
The point is NOT that sc2 has no micro. yes we know you can still target fire and flank and "kite" and move back injured units etc. The point of the article (and supposedly the entire thread) is that that ONE missing micro capability is hurting sc2's strategic variation. Every missing bit of micro flattens the skill curve; imagine if "kiting" micro was impossible, and armies just clashed BOOM and that was that. At its core, the op is trying to point out that moving/gliding shots turned out to be especially important in making bw a varied, skill-based game. But it's difficult to fully appreciate how important moving/gliding shots are unless you've played/watched/studied bw extensively. Contempt is an understandable, perhaps even justified, reaction to have when players who don't know bw are saying that moving/gliding micro doesn't do anything except make more clicks. This is something you can't compensate for with an engine or game mechanic. | ||
|
hoovehand
United Kingdom542 Posts
if you're not a pro, try to just stick a sock in it. | ||
| ||
