|
On April 28 2010 21:16 Fizban140 wrote:
Umm what? Blizzard has always been about mainstream audience, its their thing. Diablo to Diablo 2. Warcraft one to Warcraft 2 and then 3. Look at World of Warcraft. Blizzard is known for making accessible and polished games.
Yes people are wrong to expect SC2 to not have those features, blizzard actually wants to sell some copies of this game. This game would fail incredibly hard if it didn't have new features to make the game easier to get into. It doesn't dumb it down, what are people afraid that MBS takes away? It lets people without 150 APM macro a little easier?
Blizzard will do what they want to do, yes. But that this means I, for example, am wrong in hoping* that the game will be the way I like it?
* Everybody knew there will be changes.
|
On April 28 2010 21:14 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:08 Fizban140 wrote:
I thought you were responding to yomi, saw the Yadda yaddas. Its been a long day and I need sleep.
Anyways xeoGT makes a lot of good points. Did people honestly think that a mainstream (SC1 was mainstream too) game released in 2010 wasn't going to have MBS and smart casting? Did you really think unit selection would be 12? Blizzard was the only company I put above selling out and catering a game to the mainstream audience  .
You're an idiot.
They are a company.
Companies want profits.
Profits come from catering to, or forming the,...drumroll...mainstream!
Your (and I'm sad to see many others sharing it) childish underground wishful thinking does not support any opinions you might have on the topic.
|
On April 28 2010 21:18 Fizban140 wrote:
No but there are some people in here who still want the changes to go away. I think this game just needs a little more time before the mechanics are worked out and some micro intensive trick is figured out.
That's just an argument I hate.
Most people in here arguing against moving shot only do it because they resent what they think are Brood War players wanting SC2 to be a carbon copy of BW.
I don't see any actual arguments being made as to why it'd be a dangerous thing for the game to allow for more and better control. Why shouldn't the game be more realistic? What's the danger in that aside from that it "might resemble Brood War"?
Is that a reason to be opposed to a change that would allow for a more fun game?
|
I don't think realism is anything to be considered in this game at all, no I don't think it needs to be more realistic. It needs to be more fun and balanced, that is all I think it needs. I am not saying moving shot is either.
I am just trying to be optimistic, moving shot is gone but there will be other things to replace it in time. Hold position for lurkers or even muta stacking wasn't discovered for a while. I just don't think it is something that will be added to the game. Although I do play from korea to the US so I am use to the lag in all the games I play.
|
On April 28 2010 21:16 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:08 Fizban140 wrote:
I thought you were responding to yomi, saw the Yadda yaddas. Its been a long day and I need sleep.
Anyways xeoGT makes a lot of good points. Did people honestly think that a mainstream (SC1 was mainstream too) game released in 2010 wasn't going to have MBS and smart casting? Did you really think unit selection would be 12? No, and I even acknowledge those changes as good ones. Most people do after having played the game. If anything, the fact that we embraced certain changes but didn't like the absence of moving shot, should strengthen our argument. We tried the game. We liked certain changes and certain innovations. We thought the absence of moving shot was a step in the wrong direction. Maybe we aren't the nostalgic brainless fanatics you think we are after all?
Many people are, unfortunately, and they mingle with the crowd in hopes of getting heard. That's causing misunderstanding.
On topic: moving shot in itself is not a panacea. The game won't suddenly be made perfect if we were to give marines the ability to turn instantly and a shorter firing animation and watch as they kited everything to oblivion. Moving shot was coupled with other interesting (dis-)abilities, like the splash damage for Corsairs, the paper that was Wraiths, the inability of Siege Tanks to quickly escape unscathed.
My point is, and I reiterate, that moving shot is nice but not necessary. Perhaps it would indeed give additional depth to the micromanagement aspect of game (and that would be especially true for Protoss air, I'm sure many will agree on that), but I think SC2 can survive just fine without it. That being said, it's still on the Blizzard team to decide - have similar concerns been posted on the b.net forums, btw?
2c
|
On April 28 2010 21:32 Fizban140 wrote:
I don't think realism is anything to be considered in this game at all, no I don't think it needs to be more realistic. It needs to be more fun and balanced, that is all I think it needs. I am not saying moving shot is either.
I am just trying to be optimistic, moving shot is gone but there will be other things to replace it in time. Hold position for lurkers or even muta stacking wasn't discovered for a while.
It's not even though OP says otherwise.
|
On April 28 2010 21:25 mfukar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:14 SubtleArt wrote:On April 28 2010 21:08 Fizban140 wrote:
I thought you were responding to yomi, saw the Yadda yaddas. Its been a long day and I need sleep.
Anyways xeoGT makes a lot of good points. Did people honestly think that a mainstream (SC1 was mainstream too) game released in 2010 wasn't going to have MBS and smart casting? Did you really think unit selection would be 12? Blizzard was the only company I put above selling out and catering a game to the mainstream audience . You're an idiot. They are a company. Companies want profits. Profits come from catering to, or forming the,...drumroll...mainstream! Your (and I'm sad to see many others sharing it) childish underground wishful thinking does not support any opinions you might have on the topic.
The potential profits from bringing esports into the foreground are staggering, you shouldn't just think about the players, but the spectators and sponsorship.
If sc2 became a household name they'd sell a lot more copies...
Though I agree, thinking blizzard are not catering to the mainstream is dumb =p
|
On April 28 2010 21:33 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:32 Fizban140 wrote:
I don't think realism is anything to be considered in this game at all, no I don't think it needs to be more realistic. It needs to be more fun and balanced, that is all I think it needs. I am not saying moving shot is either.
I am just trying to be optimistic, moving shot is gone but there will be other things to replace it in time. Hold position for lurkers or even muta stacking wasn't discovered for a while. It's not even though OP says otherwise.
Okay...moving shot like in BW is gone.
|
On April 28 2010 21:18 Fizban140 wrote:
No but there are some people in here who still want the changes to go away. I think this game just needs a little more time before the mechanics are worked out and some micro intensive trick is figured out.
Sorry to use you as an example but this kind of argument has been employed many many many times in this thread, and I don't understand it.
I, like you and many others, am sure people will figure out neat little micro tricks soon, and will find a niche as moving/gliding shot did in bw. But how is that an argument justifying the lack of moving shot? Why not have moving/gliding shot in addition to the other undiscovered micro tricks? Keeping it out is wasteful, imo, especially in light of the good it did bw.
In a phrase: why not?
|
I just don't think it is time to call this game dead yet like some people are, petition all you want for moving shot but I doubt blizzard will change it this late. If they do great, but I really wouldn't expect it.
|
On April 28 2010 21:34 emikochan wrote:
The potential profits from bringing esports into the foreground are staggering, you shouldn't just think about the players, but the spectators and sponsorship.
You're right, but it's a case for the infinite monkey theorem: esports players and viewers will be composed from people that like the game just the way it is, ie. not Brood War, not C&C, not Supreme Commander, and so forth. ;-)
So, for Blizzard, it's a win-win. The hardcore fans aren't going to abandon the franchise. They never do.
|
Very good read. I totally agree about the control part. Midgame and lategame in sc2 is way too much stalling tactics and the sloppy controls are the reason.
I can only hope that blizzard will jump in and stop DB. It just feels like this isnt Blizzard anymore, they just bought random devs and gave them alot of time and money. Basically every dev would deliver a pretty decent game. But would it be Blizzard good ? No.
|
On April 28 2010 21:36 jellyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:18 Fizban140 wrote:
No but there are some people in here who still want the changes to go away. I think this game just needs a little more time before the mechanics are worked out and some micro intensive trick is figured out. Sorry to use you as an example but this kind of argument has been employed many many many times in this thread, and I don't understand it. I, like you and many others, am sure people will figure out neat little micro tricks soon, and will find a niche as moving/gliding shot did in bw. But how is that an argument justifying the lack of moving shot? Why not have moving/gliding shot in addition to the other undiscovered micro tricks? Keeping it out is wasteful, imo, especially in light of the good it did bw. In a phrase: why not?
I think it all comes down to the negative tone and bashing in the OP.
What a failure of 50 pages of a discussion lol.
BTW WTF we are the fucking mainstream.
|
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?
How did you play Starcraft for years without realizing that it has a damage system with arbitrary bonuses? Incredible.
|
How did you quote two sentences and not even be able to read it properly? Incredible.
|
I really don't think moving shot would be imba considering the removal of air unit stacking. Air units and others w/ moving shot would be noticeably better, that's true, but their ability to concentrate force like the mutalisks of sc1 would be gone. It was the combination of stacking and move-shooting that defined their behavior and use.
Personally, I just think moving shot is *fun* to perform. It also introduces a really cool tension in that you have to allocate this intangible resource--your attention. You can only pay attention to so many things at a time. I kind of think of the moving-shot (and other micromanagement) as being able to chronoboost objects on the field. Isn't that cool?
The kiting we have is similar to the moving shot. That argument could be made. It requires fewer clicks and lesser precision, though. It's also less effective in reducing the damage your units take--having to stop in order to shoot exposes you to return fire, unless you're kiting something like a zealot. Other than that, kiting and move-shooting is a matter of degree. How effective and how apm intensive do you want micromanagement to be?
Aside from all this, I'm worried that the removal of the moving shot has come about for aesthetic and technical reasons. Gameplay has to come first. Moreover, cutting the moving-shot because units "look silly doing it" is only a failure of imagination and technology. An animation may be devised to display a quick sliding 180 turn. A skeletal animation system may be created to allow independent animation of the hellion turret and chassis. Why hasn't this been done? Either it creates a negative gameplay environment (which I doubt, but I welcome the argument), or in the judgment of Blizzard it is difficult to program and offers little benefit, or it creates a performance strain on the game, or they simply disagree that the hellion is a clunky and unfun unit.
All in all, I really hope the moving shot is reintroduced to SC2. I can't speak for everyone, but the increased fluidity of movement that the moving shot offers makes it more fun for me to play, and more fun for me to watch. And please don't tell me to just go play BW. I like BW. I also like SC2. I think SC2 would be even more fun with some tweaks. What's wrong with that?
|
Excellent analysis. I never could quite put my finger on why my mutas felt so primitive in sc2 or why my worker vs worker was so frustrating (expo block anybody?)...but the "gliding" shot explanation makes perfect sense.
Microing my Drone vs a Probe in SC2 is like driving around a big bus vs compared to some sports car...the sc1 drone does exactly how I want when I want I feel "in control" and can do sexy moves if I micro well...the sc2 drone spends more time gliding and glitching about. I am sure at least to fix it for workers would not be a balance problem - fixing it for things like Mutas or Helions on the other hand will be tricky since it probably will shift the balance around quite a lot.
|
On April 28 2010 21:57 sluggaslamoo wrote:
How did you quote two sentences and not even be able to read it properly? Incredible.
Because "one size fits all" is a retarded description for a system with 3 different damage types, with different percentage modifiers against 3 different armor types?
|
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.
Intended or not, the bugs and moving shots made Starcraft into what it is and Blizzard should have watched and learned.
You're right in that SC2 is not SC. But you need to remember that SC2 is a SEQUEL not a new IP. It should do everything that SCBW does but better in all categories or it's a lousy sequel.
Currently SC2 doesn't outshine SC in every category and that is a huge problem. It's beta, so it shouldn'r be expected to have an exciting pro scene yet, but at least the game mechanics should be good enough to allow for interresting play, and they just aren't. Simple as that.
|
It should do everything that SCBW does but better in all categories or it's a lousy sequel.
Currently SC2 doesn't outshine SC in every category and that is a huge problem.
This is really not what a sequel is at all. Never has been, never will be. Sequels often bring changes, some are good, some not so good, others a matter of opinion and preference. We're not talking about yearly franchise updates like Madden here, but a game built 12 years after the original in a gaming landscape and market that has changed a ton since then and doesn't even have all the same designers working on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
