EPTAnd when and on what you use your chrono boost is most definitely a strategic decision.
Just admit it; no matter what you will hate this game because it isn't a Brood War clone.
Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 51
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
And when and on what you use your chrono boost is most definitely a strategic decision. Just admit it; no matter what you will hate this game because it isn't a Brood War clone. | ||
|
mfukar
Greece41 Posts
On April 28 2010 02:36 Garrl wrote: People with high post counts -> generally knowledgeable -> know what's good for the game. No, post count says nothing. Only post content does. | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:16 alexanderzero wrote: Unfortunately I really don't have time to keep talking about this right now, but on the subject of the worker split in SC2. Yes it does exist, but most people don't do it because it is more difficult. Most players who do a worker split divide the 6 workers into two groups of 3, or maybe into 3 groups of two. However I haven't once seen anyone pull off a complete split. I do a complete split every game, and perfectly. See there's this F1 feature in SC2... Oh and it doesn't make a difference anyway. The 8th worker still starts at the same time whether you f1 send, f1 send, etc. or just send all 6 initial workers to the mins. Splitting is MUCH more difficult in sc1. I can't believe I'm actually arguing this... | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:52 lu_cid wrote: I do a complete split every game, and perfectly. See there's this F1 feature in SC2... Oh and it doesn't make a difference anyway. The 8th worker still starts at the same time whether you f1 send, f1 send, etc. or just send all 6 initial workers to the mins. Splitting is MUCH more difficult in sc1. I can't believe I'm actually arguing this... What F1? You don't mean worker rally point right? | ||
|
Vynakros
Slovenia63 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:59 beetlelisk wrote: What F1? You don't mean worker rally point right? F1 selects an idle worker. | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
On April 28 2010 14:59 beetlelisk wrote: What F1? You don't mean worker rally point right? Wha..? F1 selects idle workers. So yeah I just hit F1, send to patch, hit F1, send to different patch, repeat. It's really fast and easy. | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
On April 28 2010 15:03 lu_cid wrote: Wha..? F1 selects idle workers. So yeah I just hit F1, send to patch, hit F1, send to different patch, repeat. It's really fast and easy. Yeah but how many high level replays do you see where people do this? I actually timed it with a little experimentation and this isn't really the fastest way to distribute workers to mineral patches. Doing the 3-2 or the 2-3 split is still the fastest way. I haven't seen a split where every single worker is assigned to its own patch that is also a full speed split. | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
On April 28 2010 15:09 alexanderzero wrote: Yeah but how many high level replays do you see where people do this? I actually timed it with a little experimentation and this isn't really the fastest way to distribute workers to mineral patches. Doing the 3-2 or the 2-3 split is still the fastest way. I haven't seen a split where every single worker is assigned to its own patch that is also a full speed split. Yes it's true no high level players really do this because like I said, it doesn't get the 8th worker out any faster. I just do it for fun. Splitting is not necessary in this game. I won't discuss this further since it's way off topic. | ||
|
Aldehyde
Sweden939 Posts
I definitely think Blizz could implement a 'move shot' in Starcraft 2 but it's not really if they can, it's about whether they actually see it as an important part about what made Starcraft so great. | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
| ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 28 2010 15:03 lu_cid wrote: Wha..? F1 selects idle workers. So yeah I just hit F1, send to patch, hit F1, send to different patch, repeat. It's really fast and easy. Ah ok didn't know what F1 is for. On April 28 2010 15:14 Aldehyde wrote: While I never really played Starcraft, I see your points and deem them as valid. However, you keep acting like Blizzard knowingly implemented 'move shot' but I kind of doubt they did. I think it was just a bug that some player(s) found out and kept doing, however, that doesn't mean it's not a great thing. I definitely think Blizz could implement a 'move shot' in Starcraft 2 but it's not really if they can, it's about whether they actually see it as an important part about what made Starcraft so great. It's not a bug and it adds more control over your units from the player's perspective and dynamism from the spectator's perspective. It as an important part about what made Starcraft so great. | ||
|
Kakisho
United States240 Posts
Starcraft II isn't even out yet, I have full faith. | ||
|
Xeogt
Sweden7 Posts
I will just shortly dismiss your list of things that ought to be "better", or "uncompromised" in your own words. No chat rooms You are testing a gameplay beta which will allow the development team to review the state of the game outside of inhouse testing. You are not invited to playing a hotter version of your favorite childhood memory, and as such the chat function may be too much of a strain for a bunch of beta servers? Did that thought cross your mind?no ability to switch in between servers You buying the game will pay to expand the servernumber in the region you buy the game. Naturally blizzard wants people to stay on their own servers, since the new functionalities in Battle.net 2.0 might prove too stressful if people were to suddenly shift over to a server for a major event? Wow servers that housed major guilds, such as Magtheridon-EU and others might have made blizzard wise to such a problem.no LAN support This is an entirely copyright related issue. Recently it has been shown that the only truly annoying DRM there is on the market for crackers to break is the kind of DRM that forces you to stay online. An observant player, which you obviously are not, would have seen the greyed out "Singleplayer" tab on battle.net and deduced that the requirement to stay online to play the game is part of the copy protection, and as such would make LAN functionality useless, or counterproductive to their own intrests - of making money.no whisper functionality It's a multiplayer beta made to let blizzard get win percentages for the different matchups from a large enough and creative sampleaudience, suck it up.no DND Five minutes of coding, that will probably be implemented once they finish working on the rest of battle.net. You might have seen in patch 9 that they are still not finished with the design and functionality of even the most basic promised functions.unlimited unit selection You are saying this as if it is a bad thing? No more congaline attacks with hydralisks and marines. It won't require you to have an apm of over 150 to make your army headbutt into your opponents position, which is a step forward.rally point to minerals One of the major improvements to the game UI besides MBS and smartcasting. Even in the most high level games, by terran players such as Flash, Nada, Fantasy, or any other player, you will find 5-10 scvs at least being idle in the lategame. Functions that improve the overall management and AI of workers have been increadibly successful. MBS Excuse us? Increased ability to manifest your decisions into gameplay with the help of interface was one of the most direly needed improvements from broodwar. The ability to focusfire cannons or turrets is extremly welcome. To macro, while you engage in battle is still one of the most obvious tell-tail signs of a very competent player, as so far only a handful of players successfully do so even in the tournaments held up until now.no moving shot In some cases this would truly be a nice added function. However the argument that it is never profitable to attack a larger air army with a smaller one, I consider a non-arguement. To be able to profitably engage a larger army on the merit of skirting on the limits of the game's mechanics is very questionable. Upgrades, unit composition, positioning, attackvector and if your opponent can afford to stay and fight are, and should be the determining factors of who wins an engagement.the list goes on and on... I am glad you don't, since you've made a proper fool out of yourself already.One compromise after the other. You are not bargaining, you are not in an adversarial position to the blizzard management, you have no say in the matter of how the game will be made, other than how your concerns will influence sales, and sales of further games. If you wish to be effective in your criticism, or efforts to reform, possibly ranting, you ought to consider how big of the projected market for the game the progamers - unhappy about MBS, Mineral-rally and spellcasters accessible and useful for all - really are. You will buy the game either way - you probably have it pre-ordered in the special edition - as such blizzard is in fact, controary to your beliefs, a company out to make a lot of money, so they will cater to new audiences, to expand the franchise, at your perceived expense. Cellestial mounts anyone? | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Mortis
United States217 Posts
On April 28 2010 15:57 Xeogt wrote: You are testing a gameplay beta which will allow the development team to review the state of the game outside of inhouse testing. You are not invited to playing a hotter version of your favorite childhood memory, and as such the chat function may be too much of a strain for a bunch of beta servers? Did that thought cross your mind? Except if you read blizzard's posts, they explicitly state there will be no chat rooms in Battle.net 2.0, although I guess they at some point changed their mind? I'm reading more about it, past their sticky on their forums and a few said there will be chat.. I guess I don't know who to believe. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 28 2010 16:08 Mortis wrote: Except if you read blizzard's posts, they explicitly state there will be no chat rooms in Battle.net 2.0, although I guess they at some point changed their mind? I'm reading more about it, past their sticky on their forums and a few said there will be chat.. I guess I don't know who to believe. Source? or nvm you edited | ||
|
Xeogt
Sweden7 Posts
On April 28 2010 16:08 Mortis wrote: Except if you read blizzard's posts, they explicitly state there will be no chat rooms in Battle.net 2.0, although I guess they at some point changed their mind? I'm reading more about it, past their sticky on their forums and a few said there will be chat.. I guess I don't know who to believe. Q. Hi. So many people are complaining about this on the forum... is it true that there will be no chat channels? I hope not! A. We do have plans for chat channels. Specifically, we want to organize chat channels around users' interests so you know what types of conversations you are going to get into when you join a channel. This feature is not something that will be in for beta. Currently we plan to do this feature in a patch after the game launches. Link to twitter chat | ||
|
Aldehyde
Sweden939 Posts
On April 28 2010 15:22 beetlelisk wrote: Ah ok didn't know what F1 is for. It's not a bug and it adds more control over your units from the player's perspective and dynamism from the spectator's perspective. It as an important part about what made Starcraft so great. I don't see where I said that it didn't do all those things but can you please tell me where Blizz said that this function was intended? Just because a 'bug' makes the game better does not mean it's not a bug. I am still agreeing with the fact that this feature, bug, whatever made Starcraft what it is today. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
On April 28 2010 16:59 Aldehyde wrote: I don't see where I said that it didn't do all those things but can you please tell me where Blizz said that this function was intended? Just because a 'bug' makes the game better does not mean it's not a bug. I am still agreeing with the fact that this feature, bug, whatever made Starcraft what it is today. I can't say if it was intended or not but I wouldn't call it a bug... abusing game engine maybe. There has been quite a few people saying to get over it if it's not possible so even calling it a bug sounds diminishing now  It gives to much joy to call it a bug  | ||
|
tema
Estonia1 Post
At some point starcraft was heavily criticized for it's graphics. But what this game lacked in graphics it's compensated with it's magnificent gameplay. Part of this was due to excellent units control, which however required constant practice. And this scared a lot of noobs. Same thing was happening with another game - Quake2. When Q3 appeared there were same arguments, that any noob could beat a more experienced player, that game turned in to arcade and not a 3d shooter. Now lets get back to our time and look at SC2. Blizzard can't concentrate on pure gameplay these days. Access to high performance hardware requires from game developers that any game should be pretty Lets be honest and number of players (pro players) who are interested in pure gameplay are not that big. So, from company point of view main market are those noobs. And how do you attract noobs to any game? Yes, by giving them a chance to beet more experienced players and creating a very beautiful game. Will the game be abandoned by the pro players because of the poor micro? By some, probably. Others will adjust, same way they did in Quake. Will this bring more new players to SC2, most definitely. | ||
| ||
