|
On April 28 2010 02:18 TheAntZ wrote:
[
*bzzzt* wrong.
What 'new' skills does sc2 require that BW didnt require? and how is multitasking a bigger deal exactly?
Because of the harder counters, you have to pay more attention to army composition, and make adjustments on the fly.
Even the very best players of SC2 right now quite often show an extremely poor ability to make adjustments to their opponent's unit mix.
Also, a good point was brought up earlier IMO, which I will expand on. If you believe that unit clumping in SC2 kills micro, then perhaps that's your first clue about where to spend your micro management energy.
Micro in SCBW mostly has to do with overcoming flaws in the game, whether this is compensating for horrible unit pathing or taking advantage of glitches like muta stacking or moving attacks, popping through minerals, and so on.
The flaws in SC2 may be different, and that means a different emphasis on the micro, but it doesn't mean there is no room for micro. Keep in mind that the most hardcore micro in the game of SCBW didn't develop for many years. If you had made a snap judgment about micro in SCBW a year after release, the emphasis would have mainly been on dancing units, controlling casters, and proper use of grouping hotkeys for macro production. Not exactly more hardcore than SC2.
Something like moving attack micro is not going to magically develop if the game engine doesn't support it, but there's no way to know what else might develop in its place. Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed.
|
On April 28 2010 04:15 killias2 wrote:
Cliff Abuse -/+ +
Mobility - +
Scouting -/+ +
This isn't even correct. It should be more like
Cliff Abuse + -/+
Mobility + ++
Scouting + +
Because high ground advantage is either all or nothing with sight, it's either going to make terrain impassible or it is not going to contribute to a fight. And with a single flying unit giving vision of the entire high ground, it's more likely that it's going to be useless. Cliffs in sc1 made your units harder to kill, and thus gave you a positional advantage all the time, regardless of vision.
They did do well with improving mobility. But saying sc1 didn't have mobility is pretty flawed considering how fast and effective muta clumps were, mobile mnm forces, and all sorts of drop techniques. But yes, sc2 does have all that and more. Good job there.
Scouting is equally important in both games. If you don't know what your opponent is going for in sc1 chances are you're going to lose just as you will in sc2. Maybe it is slightly more important in sc2, but it's inaccurate to say that it is unimportant in sc1.
|
On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed.
SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot.
|
On April 28 2010 04:57 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed. SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot.
An opinion that many share, but ultimately just an opinion.
|
You can quote me for the years to come on this:
There will be no stacked air units in Starcraft 2. Therefore, there wont be any moving shots like in BW.
No spectators wants to see a blob of air units fighting. When I spend time watching starcraft 2 games, I want to be able to figure out whats happening. That means being able to count the units that will be fighting or that im fighting against. I dont want a another random variable like, well how many muta is in that stack??? how many units do I need to counter this stack of banshee??? if you cant figure that out with a quick glimpse then you have incomplete information and its bad for the strategy part of "RTS".
|
I really think that people are mistaken when they claim that things like moving shot are truly what made SCBW the best rts ever.
Like, if Command and Conquer suddenly had a glitch that made moving shot possible, would it be just as good as SC?
To me the genius of SC is the economic focus, balance, and strategic depth that made SC the game it is. SC2 seems to emphasize those things, hence I think it will be a great game. If you only played BW for the muta micro I think you were missing out on a lot.
|
On April 28 2010 04:59 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:57 lolaloc wrote:On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed. SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot. An opinion that many share, but ultimately just an opinion.
Its just like your opinion man!
|
On April 28 2010 05:02 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:59 Wintermute wrote:On April 28 2010 04:57 lolaloc wrote:On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed. SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot. An opinion that many share, but ultimately just an opinion. Its just like your opinion man!
Lebowski reference? It really ties the room together.
|
On April 28 2010 05:03 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 05:02 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 28 2010 04:59 Wintermute wrote:On April 28 2010 04:57 lolaloc wrote:On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed. SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot. An opinion that many share, but ultimately just an opinion. Its just like your opinion man! Lebowski reference? It really ties the room together.
Nah I just hate when people use that arguement.
So what if most people dont find the game fun? Thats just their opinion its not fact!
|
So how about that diablo 3? Rumor has it blizzard wont even implement duping
|
On April 28 2010 04:59 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:57 lolaloc wrote:On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed. SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot. An opinion that many share, but ultimately just an opinion.
Case closed. Blizzard must implement moving/gliding shot micro now!
On April 28 2010 05:01 petered wrote:
I really think that people are mistaken when they claim that things like moving shot are truly what made SCBW the best rts ever.
It didn't make BW the best by itself. But it contributed to achieve that.
On April 28 2010 05:01 Fallen wrote:
There will be no stacked air units in Starcraft 2. Therefore, there wont be any moving shots like in BW.
Fail analogy is fail. Moving shots never required unit stacking anyway.
|
|
|
On April 28 2010 04:51 TheYango wrote:Or you could attempt to explain why he's wrong instead of just dismissing him because you're too lazy to.
I could, but... oh well, I have no excuse.
|
|
|
On April 28 2010 05:08 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 04:59 Wintermute wrote:On April 28 2010 04:57 lolaloc wrote:On April 28 2010 04:55 Wintermute wrote:
Most of the complaints ultimately come down to "SC2 doesn't have this specific quirk that SCBW had" or "SC2 has this specific quirk that SCBW didn't have" which is fine to complain about, but doesn't prove that SC2 is inferior or failed. SC2 is already inferior by lacking moving/gliding shot. An opinion that many share, but ultimately just an opinion. Case closed. Blizzard must implement moving/gliding shot micro now! Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 05:01 petered wrote:
I really think that people are mistaken when they claim that things like moving shot are truly what made SCBW the best rts ever. It didn't make BW the best by itself. But it contributed to achieve that. Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 05:01 Fallen wrote:
There will be no stacked air units in Starcraft 2. Therefore, there wont be any moving shots like in BW. Fail analogy is fail. When was it stated that moving/gliding shot required stacking?
Yeah, I mean the mechanics (of which moving shot was a very crucial part of) gave BW a certain kind of feel. Of course many things contributed to the whole BW feel, but moving was certainly a part of it. And good mechanics is one of the things that I've yet to find in another RTS game.
|
On April 28 2010 05:04 Archerofaiur wrote:
Nah I just hate when people use that arguement.
So what if most people dont find the game fun? Thats just their opinion its not fact!
I didn't say "So what?" I just said "It's an opinion."
Many people share it and many people don't share it. It's arrogant to say "My opinion, therefore correct." SC2 lacks an element that's important to those who play SCBW like the pros play it. But who says that's the most satisfying game experience for most people?
There's a great deal of group think and self selection going on here. If you have a lot of posts on TL.net, you are probably a pretty hardcore SCBW player. You wouldn't be a hardcore SCBW player if you didn't enjoy those glitches/features that exist in SCBW. The millions of people who don't care for that style are excluded from the conversation before it even happens because hey, SC2 should appeal only to those who were hardcore about SCBW rather than those who would have been hardcore about it if it had a slightly different focus.
I play a lot of other games, and I see this sort of thing come up all of the time. Hell, in WoW, the hardcore arena contingent virtually mutinied against the game because during the most recent expansion, arena combat became much faster paced with a twitch emphasis, and less of a "chess" game like it had been in the prior expansion.
Those people who were successful and/or drawn to arenas in the prior expansion are CERTAIN that the only skillful form of arena is slower paced and strategic, and they all engage in group think where they tell each other that yes, that's right, twitch based game play is "low skill." But it's not lower skill, it's just DIFFERENT skill.
One type of skill makes way for another, and players who are well suited to one style or who enjoy that style think the new style is lacking skill because suddenly the gap between the hardcore and the "would be" hardcore is narrowed or even becomes reversed.
TL;DR:
You're not wrong to complain that SC2 is not the game you want it to be. You're wrong to complain that it's not the game that any one wants it to be. You're not wrong to say that it lacks cetain skill based elements that existed in SCBW. You are wrong to say that it is just less skill based than SCBW.
|
On April 28 2010 05:01 Fallen wrote:
You can quote me for the years to come on this:
There will be no stacked air units in Starcraft 2. Therefore, there wont be any moving shots like in BW.
No spectators wants to see a blob of air units fighting. When I spend time watching starcraft 2 games, I want to be able to figure out whats happening. That means being able to count the units that will be fighting or that im fighting against. I dont want a another random variable like, well how many muta is in that stack??? how many units do I need to counter this stack of banshee??? if you cant figure that out with a quick glimpse then you have incomplete information and its bad for the strategy part of "RTS".
Since the observers can select units, you can actually see how many mutalisks there are to a stack easily. I guess you're wrong.
|
On April 28 2010 05:15 Squeegy wrote:
Case closed. Blizzard must implement moving/gliding shot micro now!
.
A lot of people have the opinion that the confederacy was awesome.
Therefore the US government should immediately recognize the independence of the original confederate states, and slavery should be re established?
|
So basically the big argument here is that SC2 is missing micro depth. As of right now I would have to agree. It has micro in it, and it's different, but it's not as deep as before. But SC2 is also deeper in strategy depth then SC:BW. They are different games, and as of right now a player can succeed at SC2 and fail at SC:BW and vice versa. But I think in the future people will find ways to micro the units in SC2 better and at release for all we know they will implement something that will change a few subtle things in the game allowing for more micro. But SC2 is NOT SC:BW and being completely different games they have completely different mechanics. As of right now, SC2 being in beta and all, I am happy with where the game is. No, I do not think it is perfect. Yes, I want more micro and some changes...but there is a lot of time from now to release to see something happen I think. I think people should wait till release to completely bitch a game out, but that's just me.
|
This is just so insanely nice written. And i agree with u on every single part, especially the pro scene thing. Why would jaedong switch over to sc2 if there will be maybe 10% skill difference between the best and the worst player in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
