WCSOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
bobhund
Sweden361 Posts
| ||
|
OmasN
United Kingdom158 Posts
| ||
|
aeroH
United States1034 Posts
| ||
|
jewce
United States68 Posts
Is it not possible that there is new things to be discovered, now I didn't play BW from the beginning, at least from a non-UMS aspect, but I'm pretty sure most of the micro and tactics discovered in the original didn't come out within the first few months and probably even years from when it came out. And from a spectators point of view, when I watch players like NonY in the HDH invitational I find it to be very entertaining. Give the game some time, and let some new things be found. | ||
ArvickHero
10378 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:14 ret wrote: I miss the feeling of being in total control of the game so much.  come back to BW :D | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States7379 Posts
| ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States913 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:09 MuffinDude wrote: Yea. the micro mechanics are really really bad in sc2. Great read. 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. I'll quote my earlier post: However, in terms of movement, most people are looking at it at too high of a level (in developer terms, not skill terms); i.e. hold position gives a moving shot while attack move requires deacceleration. You all need to understand what's happening at a lower level(in developer terms, as in, closer to the code) and that this was not intended behavior, but simply a result of some of the flaws in the engine that were overlooked by most but only really discovered by the real competitive gamers. If you were to ask someone who has never laid eyes on starcraft before to judge ONLY movement between SC1 and SC2, he will without a doubt say that SC2 movement looks more "real" and "right." As bad as it is for competitive gaming, as a finished game in modern game industry, such details are a necessity and outweigh the need for competition. In the end, this is all about sales. They can say whatever they want about esports and whatnot, but make no mistake, Blizzard is no different from any other game company. Whether it's a newbie buying the game and playing it for a month vs a seasoned veteran who buys it and plays it for years to come, a sale is a sale, and each of those cases count as one. It's very unrealistic to assume that we, the competitive gamers, make up a larger chunk of their sales than the casual gamer. Not to mention the various statements that they want to cater towards the casual gamer. | ||
|
Steve496
United States60 Posts
Additionally, I'm really curious what games you've been watching - and playing - that lead you to your hypothesis that 4-gate + robo and 5-gate strategies are dominating, as I just haven't seen it. It isn't true of games I play, and it isn't true of the games I see from the various tourneys. I'm not saying it isn't true anywhere, but I certainly haven't seen it. I also think it's important to remember that SC2 is at a very different point in it's life cycle right now than SC1 is. Sure, SC1 games use a lot more clever micro tricks and tend to wind up with more expansions faster and whatever else... but that's the result of 10+ years of evolution of the game. All the micro tricks that are "standard" today weren't discovered and perfected in the first 3 months of SC - some of them (muta micro) took a number of years. No, players aren't expanding as aggressively in SC2 as they often do in SC1... but it's not like Forge-FE in PvZ was standard (or even done) in SC1 until a fair amount of time had passed. Basically: yes, SC2 lacks a number of elements that make SC1 the polished eSport that it is now; but the comparison isn't even remotely fair. SC2 is 3 months old, and while it's true that people's experience with SC1 is causing it to evolve more quickly, the fact remains that it's still a young game. The fair comparison is not SC2 against SC1 in it's current form; the fairer comparison is how SC2 stacks up against where SC1 was when it was a year old. And I don't think SC2 fairs too badly in that comparison. Which is not to say that there aren't legitimate concerns; for instance, the irrelevance of high ground advantage in the mid and late game has significant implications in terms of map design which I find concerning. But I do feel that you're significantly exaggerating the severity of these issues. If you feel that Moving Shot is an important aspect of RTS micro and that SC2 suffers from it's lack, that's fine; but asserting that the game can't be successful without fixing that because strategic options aren't as polished as in a game that's been around for over a decade just seems naive. | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States7512 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:14 jewce wrote: Well written post, but I'm going to have to disagree. Is it not possible that there is new things to be discovered, now I didn't play BW from the beginning, at least from a non-UMS aspect, but I'm pretty sure most of the micro and tactics discovered in the original didn't come out within the first few months and probably even years from when it came out. And from a spectators point of view, when I watch players like NonY in the HDH invitational I find it to be very entertaining. Give the game some time, and let some new things be found. I believe the point that is being made here is that those things wont be able to be found, cuz the game engine wont allow it. | ||
|
DeathByMonkeys
United States742 Posts
Seems like you can look outside the box give some good incite as to what blizzard needs to change. | ||
|
JadeFist
United States1225 Posts
That may be great for some people, but I find it really frustrating that I simply lose due to my build order, even though I am far mechanically superior to my opponent. I thought you summed it up really well when you said that weaker armies simply cannot engage stronger armies, no matter how the units are controlled on either side. I'm already playing more BW than SC2 these days after getting my beta key a week ago lol. | ||
|
moonman
United States33 Posts
| ||
|
mrdx
Vietnam1555 Posts
| ||
|
zak
Korea (South)1009 Posts
| ||
|
TossPro
Norway10 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Beachac
United States278 Posts
| ||
|
Ranix
United States666 Posts
| ||
|
OHtRUe
United States283 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. If its a glitch and it benifits the game then why not keep it in. Also shortening the attack animation of a unit is NOT A GLITCH in no form. Its removing the animation based on the engine with Direct skill. Thinking about it games without the true core of the game not being able to be modded are often saved by "glitches". Halo 1, Halo 2, starcraft in this case, Bunnyhopping (since you think using the engine to your advantage is a glitch) and probably more if i coudl remember | ||
|
d0da
United States101 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5468 Posts
always was one of my main issues with the game. some units just dont "feel" right.which again comes down to what you described. | ||
| ||
|
| ||
