EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 46
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ix
United Kingdom184 Posts
| ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
| ||
|
dshsdhk
Korea (South)61 Posts
| ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:01 Bluerain wrote: wc3 doesnt have move attack but pros still dominate and apm/micro matters WC3 has no macro at all, it is only micro. There is a huge difference between WC3 and SC2 mechanics wise. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:31 Sfydjklm wrote: You, and everyone else in this thread are just ignorant. How long did it take to come up with all the micro maneurs in SCBW? Years many years. If you were there for SC1 you would be crying about how lurkers are imbalanced and totally destroy mnms with their splash dmg. What you posted, specific micro maneuvers that have been yet to be developed, is completely irrelevant to anything I said. (And it isn't true because I was their when BW released, and I never posted any complaint) Lets say we had vultures with hellions. Do you think we would see vulture mining dragoons that required the same level of skill that it did in SC1 all those years back when it was first showcased by Boxer? No, we wouldn't, because the game no longer requires that level of control, and thus, the individual's skill is given less expression. It would be laughably easy now, bind hellions to 2, spam spider mine button around enemy position. While we many not have discovered specific tactics, it doesn't matter, because the current structure of the game does not permit the level of control that BW did. While in some ways, asking for it to be the same is unreasonable, such as in the aspects of limiting unit selection to 12 or lack of smarcasting, hurting the games mainstream appeal, other aspects such as the ones the OP outlined, like patrol micro and the removal of glide, can only be beneficial. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8182 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:00 ix wrote: Every time an issue like this comes up in a game beta, and I've seen this many times I wonder why those against the inclusion of a feature are so determined. You don't lose strategy because it's also possible to micro a unit, it just means if an opponent is far more skilled then you might lose even with a superior strategic choice but this is pretty rare in reality, the better microer is also just as good or better than you at strat, you just tell yourself it's otherwise. Adding this feature to SC2 wouldn't make it magically cease to be SC2, nor 'just make it SC:BW', and it would add depth to SC2's micro while taking away no strategic depth (really, stop claiming adding micro removes strategic depth, it doesn't). I agree with this. The inclusion of great micro allows for even more strategies. For instance, the fantasy build is only possible through great vulture micro, 2 hatch muta is only viable because of muta micro, etc | ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:36 killias2 wrote: More than anything else, I don't think the BW and SC2 competitive scenes are even comparable right now. SC2 is new, so there hasn't been much chance for evolution. Also, many of the players are new and probably only take it somewhat seriously. In comparison, BW has been out for 12 years, and only the most hardcore players remain competitive. This might explain some of your difficulties. I mean, really, do you expect random people with maybe minor RTS experience to be able to deal adequately with someone with 12 years of experience playing the prequel? As indicated above, I think a lot of this depends on Blizzard changing up the leagues some, as, right now, it's far too easy to become plat. Regardless, do you really think this supports your argument? You trounce the competition without trying. Shouldn't you be losing 50/50 or something because outcomes are determined by luck and/or throwing rock against scissors anyway? If anything, I think this is proof that SC2 does differentiate between better and worse players.. there just aren't enough good players in the beta and/or enough of a differentiation between plat and gold players, etc. Your winning record would apparently say more about your opponents than the game itself... Please, i'm really just trying to be helpful. I don't think you know what you're talking about. Like I said earlier I passed the 1st grade. At the beginning of 2nd grade, I am held to the standard at the end of 1st grade. That's called progress. Starcraft 2 has 12 years of history to build upon. Why the hell would you ignore that. If you aren't going to learn from the past, than it's worthless. Ask any pro, I promise they will all agree that sc2 takes less apm than BW to play at peak efficiency. SC2 beta has probably the TOP players right now. People who aren't playing the beta are the ones not interested in playing at a reasonably competitive level. Once the game comes out, it will only get easier to be platinum. BW needed time to devolop because we could not even fathom the level that an RTS could be played at. We needed pioneers to show us that in an RTS, you could dodge shots, do moving shots, and, with 250+ apm, macro/micro to almost a machine like efficiency. Because of this precedent, we don't need another 12 years to tell SC2 is an easier game. There is MUCH less micro. People are trying really hard to find micro but the OP states the reason why new micro will NOT be found. Also, mathematically, we can confirm that sc2 requires less apm to play at maximum efficiency. While proving it mathematically would be a very difficult and arduous task, the difference between BW and sc2 is so big that we can just estimate and very clearly see the difference. Kind of like the difference between 1000 people in a room and 10,000 people in a room. You don't need to prove that the 10,000 room has more people in it. The fact that you ask for proof of these things is why I assume you are ignorant of BW. Your turn, PROVE me wrong. What's your iccup rank? | ||
|
fashizzle
United States18 Posts
The question is what are the further hidden cascading changes if Micro was reimplemented into the game. I hope it doesn't just turn into a clone of BW with upgraded graphics and UI. Its SC2, it needs to feel like number 2. What a difficult position. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:49 Half wrote: Plz stop this argument. Blizzard isn't making a low skill cap to cater to casuals. They are making things like MBS because this is fucking 2010, not 1998, and outside of basic features such as that, SC2 is basically designed ground up to keep as many hard core fans as possible without intentionally imitating limitations in technology. I would not be so sure of that statement. Almost every game nowadays is going to cater primarily to the casual gamer, that's just the way of the market at the moment. In the end the number of casual gamers will vastly outnumber the amount of hardcore gamers. For an example, just see what happened with WoW. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12069 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:07 Qikz wrote: Do people not realise if they add moving shots in (more so than are in now) it would take even longer to actually balance the game? It would shift the balance of vikings, pheonix's, mutas and hellions completely. So what? Long-term Game Depth >>>>>>>>> Short-Term Imbalance | ||
|
omg.deus
Korea (South)150 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:06 Jayme wrote: I would not be so sure of that statement. Almost every game nowadays is going to cater primarily to the casual gamer, that's just the way of the market at the moment. In the end the number of casual gamers will vastly outnumber the amount of hardcore gamers. For an example, just see what happened with WoW. Catering to casuals will be far more profitable than to a relatively small competitive community. Super Smash Brothers Melee was an amazingly competitive game that required a lot of speed and dexterity to perform at the top levels. The designer purposely made the sequel easier to bridge the gap between newbs and pros. The result? any extremely stale, boring game that is focused more on "strategy". People still have tournaments, but the following doesn't have nearly the same kind of passion and fire that the previous game had. People claimed that the smash sequel just wasn't nearly as exciting and didn't have those WOW moments...kinda sounds familiar. | ||
|
Vynakros
Slovenia63 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:06 Jayme wrote: I would not be so sure of that statement. Almost every game nowadays is going to cater primarily to the casual gamer, that's just the way of the market at the moment. In the end the number of casual gamers will vastly outnumber the amount of hardcore gamers. For an example, just see what happened with WoW. I am saying outside of the core gameplay mechanics, which would be rediculous not to update to 2010 standards, by making the game the way they did, any choice that caters to us also caters to casuals. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:49 Half wrote: Plz stop this argument. Blizzard isn't making a low skill cap to cater to casuals. They are making things like MBS because this is fucking 2010, not 1998, and outside of basic features such as that, SC2 is basically designed ground up to keep as many hard core fans as possible without intentionally imitating limitations in technology. It isn't an argument. It is the truth. It is how the world works. The lesser of two evils. Alienate some hardcore elitists so the vast majority of players can have fun, thus returning more profit or alienate the vast majority of players... wait do I need to finish this sentence? | ||
|
Fallen
Canada192 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:02 dshsdhk wrote: SC2 need something too... workers getting 8 minerals and 8 gas (obviously removing the second gas from main and expansions), just like BW, so fast expansions would be more viable, giving more dynamism and variety of opening to the game, especially for zerg, since the only decent openings are pool14 or hat 14~15 atm. You're trolling right? On April 28 2010 07:16 Vynakros wrote: I had the same fears, and some of them still persist. What has calmed me a bit though, were the vids I've seen, done with the new Galaxy editor. If it's possible to make a physics engine, then it's also possible to add move, patrol, hold micro, high ground advantage, and any other thing people think sc2 lacks. With the popular bw maps already remade, I think we'll have an sc:bw mod for sc2 a week after release. Yes you'll be able to do that! and you can live in the past and play brood war with better graphics! I hope you'll get nostalgic when it is created. | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:07 Qikz wrote: Do people not realise if they add moving shots in (more so than are in now) it would take even longer to actually balance the game? It would shift the balance of vikings, pheonix's, mutas and hellions completely. Stop. That's only partially right. Giving players more micro makes it harder to determine the current state of balance. The balance will shift with time as micro changes, other tactics come up that allow different micro situations and so on. This means with few micro there won't be much of this balance shift without changing balance itself. (For example Mutalisks seem strong against Protoss, then people develop good Corsair Micro and Mutalisks' use suddenly drops - Without changing the unit's statistics!) It makes balance a much much much stronger factor. Having few options to use micro for improved cost efficiency -> No "distortion" from balance to actual results in fights. This makes it even harder to balance it well because it means balance has to be 100% perfect and 1%, 2% or 5% missing will have a solid effect, other than when there is micro between balance and result. In the end this might mean that it will be almost impossible to balance SC2 right. And that it will come down to very standartized gameplay with few room for surprises. I mean, yes, maybe there are imbalances in Broodwar and Warcraft 3 but players don't recognize them as imbalances because they can equal it out when they micro better than their opponent. This rarely happens in SC2. Can you micro a Thor better to be safe against mutalisk harass? Best you can do it position it better. Or change numbers in your army, like less Infantry more Thors. But you won't change the result of mutalisk harass by micro. Zerg might have a few options, like splitting mutalisks to avoid splash. But this is very limited as well and cannot exceed certain results. In 5 years it won't be "lovely mutalisk split!", it will be "very standard mutalisk split by zerg." It is something with a very clearly defined cap. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:21 Paperscraps wrote: It isn't an argument. It is the truth. It is how the world works. The lesser of two evils. Alienate some hardcore elitists so the vast majority of players can have fun, thus returning more profit or alienate the vast majority of players... wait do I need to finish this sentence? If your statement was true SC2 would have heroes. Notice its gameplay mechanics. Notice how in every single aspect except the ones that are 100% expected of any game after 2004, such as MBS, automine, and smartcasting, they stayed true to the original. Its clear that their design goal was to create a game that was as Starcrafty as possible while remaining a game that could be released in 2010. The crux of your argument relies on things that are fun for hardcore players HAS to be unfun for casualcore players. This is just an untrue assumption. This is true on some extent of course, some things are, such as automine, smartcasting, these things are elements that are 100% expected of any RTS coming out in 2010, and releasing a game without it would be financial suicide. But once you establish the core model, what is going to be fun for a hardcore player is also going to be fun for a casual player. More chances to determine the outcome of a battle due to skillful play instead of which army is bigger? Find me a single casual player who would disagree with that statement. Notice the lack of any extraneous factor, any randomness (in comparison with SSMBB items) in SC2s design. You can even compare it with WC. Notice its pace. Whats the core complaint? Games are ending TOO FAST. Go on b-net, its either that or hardcounters. Wasn't the core complaint of noobs in SC1 was rushes? Its clear that blizzard not only did not address the bogus complaint, but they reinforced it with the intention of promoting very tense, exciting play. Look at a frequent complaint coming from non Tlers on b-net, one of them is Hardcounters. Hardcounters means that they're stressing metagame strategy over a players skill. Hey, isn't that the a huge complaint from the pro community as well? O LOL U GAIS WANT THE SAME THING? That can't be! Look at another core complaints of SC2 coming outside of its own communities. Kotaku, Gamespot, "casual" communities, in relationship to starcraft at any rate. Whats the core complaint? Lack of LAN. olol you also want the same thing. Stop thinking of it as "Them or us", think of it as "Them and us". Blizzard isn't going to design a puristic version of SC2, but outside of setting a framework that is viable at all, they're going to be catering to you as far as game play goes. | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:16 omg.deus wrote: That's not my argument at all. My argument is that there is a very low ceiling for speed and dexterity so you aren't rewarded at all for being fast. Imagine Football but nobody can weigh more than 200 pounds or run faster than a certain speed. That's exactly how I see SC2 in relation to SC1. That just isn't true though. No one will ever play a perfect game; there will always be more room for APM improvements, macro improvements, strategic and tactical improvements, that will separate the best from the great. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:36 PanzerDragoon wrote: That just isn't true though. No one will ever play a perfect game; there will always be more room for APM improvements, macro improvements, strategic and tactical improvements, that will separate the best from the great. You're right. A better thing to say is that the player increase in skill isn't as noticeable as it was in SC1, because the player has less outlets to express his superior skill. In some ways, this is inevitable, we're not in 1998 anymore. In others, such as in moveshooting, it isn't. | ||
| ||
