|
|
|
"Mommy, why doesn't the person with the best micro and the highest APM always win?"
"I don't know, Timmy, but sometimes the world just isn't fair."
|
I suppose the chart was aimed at me, although I think it's quite funny. I guess my counter would be that SC2 involves other new kinds of activity that requires just as much APM as moving shot or gliding shot micro. Skills are at least as important, and, quite possibly, more important. Mobility in SC2 is light years beyond SC1. Between the Nydus Worm, the Warp Prism, reapers, Colossus, the viking, and the Medivacs, almost every species has significant new opportunities for flanking, mobility, harassment, surprise attacks, etc. This may not seem to matter in a pitched battle.. unless you've actually played the game a bit. Especially given the increased importance of the high ground, microing your units to flank, take the high ground, or harass supporting units can change the entire outcome of pitched battles. I'm sorry, but I favor this over a few different dancing mechanics any day. I also think that scouting is more important than in the first one, due to the greater prevalence of hard counters. This is also APM intensive, and I don't understand the argument that SC2 lacks features which would distinguish pros from amateurs.
In other words
SC1 SC2B
Kite + +
Unit pull + +
Mvng Shot + -
Gldng Sht + -
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility - +
Scouting -/+ +
|
The ironic part (for all those saying "no SC1.5") is that move shoot could be implemented in a unit to make it more new and different form SC1.
|
I don't think they should be making a carbon copy of sc, but sometimes I feel like they are making things different just for the sake of being different and not to make a good game. Hellions vs vultures give me this feeling more than any other unit.
After thinking about this post though, I think that I would be happy if they only added moving shot for air to air units, gliding shot for maybe one ground unit of each race. It is not a bad idea to make some units controllable by all players (to popularize the game) and other units only fully controllable by great players (to get the competitive scene rolling and make the game last)
|
On April 28 2010 04:15 killias2 wrote:
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility - +
Scouting -/+ +
None of that is micro bro.
Nobody is suggesting SC2 lacks tactical depth, we are suggest it lacks micro depth.
|
this is so true sc2 doesnt even feel the same as sc1
|
this is so true, imagine if phoenixes could dance like corsairs did, then they would be a viable option, as they are right now they become sitting ducks, like valkyries
|
The idea that all units in SC2 are just as controllable by noobs or even mid-tier players as top-tier players is absurd. Unless you have more than anecdotal evidence (ONZE I GOT TEH BEATEN BY A GUY WIFF ONLY 43 APM< I DIDNT SCOUT BUT BLIZZ HATES VIDEO GAMES), I don't want to hear another tirade, a la page one, on the irreparable damage Blizz has done to RTS's....
|
On April 28 2010 04:15 killias2 wrote:
SC1 SC2B
Kite + +
Unit pull + +
Mvng Shot + -
Gldng Sht + -
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility -/+ +
Scouting -/+ +
Cliff abuse, mobility and scouting aren't even dynamic opportunities during clashes.
You're still missing the point. We, the beta testers, are trying to mold the game into the best ESPORTS game. A previous ESPORTS game, let's name it SC1, has the feature of Gliding Shot and Moving Shot that gave the players an option to maximize their units. In SC2, these options aren't present which is just a lost feature. Blizzard has no reason to keep it absent.
|
On April 28 2010 04:21 asiu wrote:
this is so true sc2 doesnt even feel the same as sc1
I wish people would stop posting stuff like this. Not only does it not support our view, you realize that this was probably blizzards original design goal right?
|
On April 28 2010 04:20 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:15 killias2 wrote:
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility - +
Scouting -/+ + None of that is micro bro. Nobody is suggesting SC2 lacks tactical depth, we are suggest it lacks micro depth.
Mobility and cliff abuse most certainly involve micro. Besides, the topic seems to be about creating a competitive, fun atmosphere where pros can distinguish themselves and "wow" other players. That's why scouting is in there too, because it's difficult to simultaneously focus on three different activities, and pros will certainly be better at this than amateurs.
|
On April 28 2010 04:01 Fallen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 03:53 killias2 wrote:
I think this article has some good points, but, overall, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yeah, some elements of micro have been lost, but others have been added in. I honestly don't know how you can make the argument that SC2 does not involve micro and/or does not allow pros to distinguish themselves from amateurs. These are critical points to your viewpoint, and you don't come anywhere close to proving them. Hell, as someone who plays fairly frequently (Gold) and watches a lot of replays, I just don't believe either of these points are true. Better players can differentiate themselves in plenty of ways. There are hundreds of important uses for micro in terms of harassment, pitched battles, and scouting, and I just don't see how someone who PLAYS this game can't see that.
I do think there are some problems with SC2 as things stand. Hard counters are far too prevalent and powerful. I think this is at the heart of most of the controversies. Still, even though you imply the opposite ("Starcraft had a one size fits all damage system. Now how the hell did Blizzard balance it despite not being able to give units arbitrary bonus damage values towards specific armor types?"), Starcraft actually DID have a unit type/damage type system. Why do you think bats were GREAT against Zealots and lings and absolutely awful at everything else? The difference between SC1 and 2 here is that SC2 has beefed up the system, and, IMO, probably a bit too much. This explains why buildings are too easy to destroy, thus rendering defense difficult at best (any unit with + vs. armored will rip through buildings like tissue paper), why Terran ground is essentially worthless against Protoss ground in mid-game (name a Terran unit that isn't hard countered by a major component of a mid-game Protoss army...), and why certain early cheese is so effective (fast reaper.. Jesus, WAY too effective). It also gives off the "rock, paper, scissors" feel that makes games feel slightly more luck-based than SC1 did.
Nonetheless, these problems can be dealt with without your favored mechanic, and, in fact, this mechanic does virtually nothing to address any of these problems. How would better micro-ed air lead to any changes in the balance? Phoenix may be better against Muta... but Muta will be better against virtually everything else. I also not convinced that a well micro-ed Muta couldn't respond to a well micro-ed Phoenix. Even within the contours of the game AS IS, there are solutions to these problems. First and foremost, SCOUT! Scouting is a HUGE part of this game. In fact, due to the hard counters, its quite possibly more important than in the first one. I understand that scouting while creating armies, expanding, macroing, and harassing is difficult.. but that's why you need skill. Along with all the classics of micro (skills, cliff abuse, utilizing opportunities for mobility, harassing, etc.), scouting must also use up valuable APM.
If you can't handle it, please return to Brood War. I'm sure you'll have more fun, and I won't have to read another 10 page piece on how Browder doesn't care about the fans and how SC2 is all about n00bs and bright colors. Well said! I can't believe this thread is getting so much replies. I'm glad its a different game, I wouldnt like to play "brood war with better graphics". They kept enough of the first game to get the feel of it and they did a marvelous job if you ask me. I wanted new mechanics, new units and totally different strategies and tactics. Thats what I got and im very happy with the results that I've got my hands on. I'm sure some poeple will come up with "brood war with better graphics" custom maps and all you whiners and BW fanbois can go play that! I'm also glad lalush wasnt on the balance team, what a horrible POS we would be playing right now lol.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about right?
When I play SC2 I feel like I'm playing CnC.
It just seems to me that at some point no amount of micro (what little there is mind you) is going to allow an inferior army to kill a superior army. It's really a game of numbers that changes every now and then with spells like Storm.
|
On April 28 2010 04:24 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:01 Fallen wrote:On April 28 2010 03:53 killias2 wrote:
I think this article has some good points, but, overall, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yeah, some elements of micro have been lost, but others have been added in. I honestly don't know how you can make the argument that SC2 does not involve micro and/or does not allow pros to distinguish themselves from amateurs. These are critical points to your viewpoint, and you don't come anywhere close to proving them. Hell, as someone who plays fairly frequently (Gold) and watches a lot of replays, I just don't believe either of these points are true. Better players can differentiate themselves in plenty of ways. There are hundreds of important uses for micro in terms of harassment, pitched battles, and scouting, and I just don't see how someone who PLAYS this game can't see that.
I do think there are some problems with SC2 as things stand. Hard counters are far too prevalent and powerful. I think this is at the heart of most of the controversies. Still, even though you imply the opposite ("Starcraft had a one size fits all damage system. Now how the hell did Blizzard balance it despite not being able to give units arbitrary bonus damage values towards specific armor types?"), Starcraft actually DID have a unit type/damage type system. Why do you think bats were GREAT against Zealots and lings and absolutely awful at everything else? The difference between SC1 and 2 here is that SC2 has beefed up the system, and, IMO, probably a bit too much. This explains why buildings are too easy to destroy, thus rendering defense difficult at best (any unit with + vs. armored will rip through buildings like tissue paper), why Terran ground is essentially worthless against Protoss ground in mid-game (name a Terran unit that isn't hard countered by a major component of a mid-game Protoss army...), and why certain early cheese is so effective (fast reaper.. Jesus, WAY too effective). It also gives off the "rock, paper, scissors" feel that makes games feel slightly more luck-based than SC1 did.
Nonetheless, these problems can be dealt with without your favored mechanic, and, in fact, this mechanic does virtually nothing to address any of these problems. How would better micro-ed air lead to any changes in the balance? Phoenix may be better against Muta... but Muta will be better against virtually everything else. I also not convinced that a well micro-ed Muta couldn't respond to a well micro-ed Phoenix. Even within the contours of the game AS IS, there are solutions to these problems. First and foremost, SCOUT! Scouting is a HUGE part of this game. In fact, due to the hard counters, its quite possibly more important than in the first one. I understand that scouting while creating armies, expanding, macroing, and harassing is difficult.. but that's why you need skill. Along with all the classics of micro (skills, cliff abuse, utilizing opportunities for mobility, harassing, etc.), scouting must also use up valuable APM.
If you can't handle it, please return to Brood War. I'm sure you'll have more fun, and I won't have to read another 10 page piece on how Browder doesn't care about the fans and how SC2 is all about n00bs and bright colors. Well said! I can't believe this thread is getting so much replies. I'm glad its a different game, I wouldnt like to play "brood war with better graphics". They kept enough of the first game to get the feel of it and they did a marvelous job if you ask me. I wanted new mechanics, new units and totally different strategies and tactics. Thats what I got and im very happy with the results that I've got my hands on. I'm sure some poeple will come up with "brood war with better graphics" custom maps and all you whiners and BW fanbois can go play that! I'm also glad lalush wasnt on the balance team, what a horrible POS we would be playing right now lol. So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about right? When I play SC2 I feel like I'm playing CnC
Are you sure you have SC2 installed? You might want to check on that.
|
On April 28 2010 04:24 killias2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:20 Half wrote:On April 28 2010 04:15 killias2 wrote:
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility - +
Scouting -/+ + None of that is micro bro. Nobody is suggesting SC2 lacks tactical depth, we are suggest it lacks micro depth. Mobility and cliff abuse most certainly involve micro. Besides, the topic seems to be about creating a competitive, fun atmosphere where pros can distinguish themselves and "wow" other players. That's why scouting is in there too, because it's difficult to simultaneously focus on three different activities, and pros will certainly be better at this than amateurs.
...
Is clicking a unit up a cliff more micro intensive then clicking a unit upwards not onto a cliff?
Are you sure you have SC2 installed? You might want to check on that
Battles are decided less frequently by Micro, and less of it. Yes, Micro still matters to some level, but it did on CC too.
|
On April 28 2010 04:24 killias2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:20 Half wrote:On April 28 2010 04:15 killias2 wrote:
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility - +
Scouting -/+ + None of that is micro bro. Nobody is suggesting SC2 lacks tactical depth, we are suggest it lacks micro depth. Mobility and cliff abuse most certainly involve micro. Besides, the topic seems to be about creating a competitive, fun atmosphere where pros can distinguish themselves and "wow" other players. That's why scouting is in there too, because it's difficult to simultaneously focus on three different activities, and pros will certainly be better at this than amateurs.
EDIT: Moving shot and gliding shot creates a competitive and fun atmosphere where pros can distinguish themselves and WOW!!!! other players.
|
what I really wonder is if in the future something will be discover that will change how battles are determined microwise
|
On April 28 2010 04:25 killias2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:24 Jayme wrote:On April 28 2010 04:01 Fallen wrote:On April 28 2010 03:53 killias2 wrote:
I think this article has some good points, but, overall, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yeah, some elements of micro have been lost, but others have been added in. I honestly don't know how you can make the argument that SC2 does not involve micro and/or does not allow pros to distinguish themselves from amateurs. These are critical points to your viewpoint, and you don't come anywhere close to proving them. Hell, as someone who plays fairly frequently (Gold) and watches a lot of replays, I just don't believe either of these points are true. Better players can differentiate themselves in plenty of ways. There are hundreds of important uses for micro in terms of harassment, pitched battles, and scouting, and I just don't see how someone who PLAYS this game can't see that.
I do think there are some problems with SC2 as things stand. Hard counters are far too prevalent and powerful. I think this is at the heart of most of the controversies. Still, even though you imply the opposite ("Starcraft had a one size fits all damage system. Now how the hell did Blizzard balance it despite not being able to give units arbitrary bonus damage values towards specific armor types?"), Starcraft actually DID have a unit type/damage type system. Why do you think bats were GREAT against Zealots and lings and absolutely awful at everything else? The difference between SC1 and 2 here is that SC2 has beefed up the system, and, IMO, probably a bit too much. This explains why buildings are too easy to destroy, thus rendering defense difficult at best (any unit with + vs. armored will rip through buildings like tissue paper), why Terran ground is essentially worthless against Protoss ground in mid-game (name a Terran unit that isn't hard countered by a major component of a mid-game Protoss army...), and why certain early cheese is so effective (fast reaper.. Jesus, WAY too effective). It also gives off the "rock, paper, scissors" feel that makes games feel slightly more luck-based than SC1 did.
Nonetheless, these problems can be dealt with without your favored mechanic, and, in fact, this mechanic does virtually nothing to address any of these problems. How would better micro-ed air lead to any changes in the balance? Phoenix may be better against Muta... but Muta will be better against virtually everything else. I also not convinced that a well micro-ed Muta couldn't respond to a well micro-ed Phoenix. Even within the contours of the game AS IS, there are solutions to these problems. First and foremost, SCOUT! Scouting is a HUGE part of this game. In fact, due to the hard counters, its quite possibly more important than in the first one. I understand that scouting while creating armies, expanding, macroing, and harassing is difficult.. but that's why you need skill. Along with all the classics of micro (skills, cliff abuse, utilizing opportunities for mobility, harassing, etc.), scouting must also use up valuable APM.
If you can't handle it, please return to Brood War. I'm sure you'll have more fun, and I won't have to read another 10 page piece on how Browder doesn't care about the fans and how SC2 is all about n00bs and bright colors. Well said! I can't believe this thread is getting so much replies. I'm glad its a different game, I wouldnt like to play "brood war with better graphics". They kept enough of the first game to get the feel of it and they did a marvelous job if you ask me. I wanted new mechanics, new units and totally different strategies and tactics. Thats what I got and im very happy with the results that I've got my hands on. I'm sure some poeple will come up with "brood war with better graphics" custom maps and all you whiners and BW fanbois can go play that! I'm also glad lalush wasnt on the balance team, what a horrible POS we would be playing right now lol. So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about right? When I play SC2 I feel like I'm playing CnC Are you sure you have SC2 installed? You might want to check on that.
I'm pretty sure I have SC2 installed. You also might want to not sound so condescending in your posts because it just makes you look like a jackass.
|
On April 28 2010 04:11 jellyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:01 Fallen wrote:
Well said! I can't believe this thread is getting so much replies.
I'm glad its a different game, I wouldnt like to play "brood war with better graphics". They kept enough of the first game to get the feel of it and they did a marvelous job if you ask me. I wanted new mechanics, new units and totally different strategies and tactics. Thats what I got and im very happy with the results that I've got my hands on.
I'm sure some poeple will come up with "brood war with better graphics" custom maps and all you whiners and BW fanbois can go play that!
I'm also glad lalush wasnt on the balance team, what a horrible POS we would be playing right now lol. I'm terribly sorry to be so blunt but your condescending attitude is too much: If you haven't played bw competitively you have no idea what a good, competitive balance means. And if you weren't talking about competitive balance, then you have no idea what this thread, and the op is talking about.
Did you purposely call his post condescending then add two more comments that completely exemplify what it means to have a condescending attitude? Or do you just not know what condescending means?
Anyways, I agree with what the OP is asking for, but I wish it had been done in a different, more objective/scientific tone. (By that I mean less immature things like the Dustin Browder interview and more objective analysis like the Valkyrie analogy.)
|
On April 28 2010 04:15 NihiloZero wrote:
"Mommy, why doesn't the person with the best micro and the highest APM always win?"
"Well, Timmy, he just played the wrong strategy and eff'd up his macro."
Fixed your post.
Better players will win over those that are not as skilled, be it SC2, SC or WC3. Maybe the skillset needed is defined differently now, but I still think people should give the game some time until they start bashing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
