|
On April 29 2010 01:40 LaLuSh wrote:Haha nice find. I recall reading somewhere that they weren't necessarily expecting to make a profit out of SC2. Profit would be an added bonus. So the ones going on about "Blizzard only wants to make money", need to rethink. I honestly don't think Dustin Browder is aware of this issue. If he could make units dance, he would. *edit: I get the feeling he doesn't really understand what dancing means though.
Could you clarify what you understand as dancing in Starcraft? I think it's a term that can be ment in different way. It can be dancing of armies, of units or events all other the map what could specificly direct towards armies as well but also to the way players spread their bases.
|
i really think this thread has gotten out of hand, just go play sc1 and quit the QQ lol
|
Good article.
I stopped caring for this game after they said no LAN will be included, but I like reading about how they fail at so many points.
|
On April 29 2010 01:45 teekesselchen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:40 LaLuSh wrote:Haha nice find. I recall reading somewhere that they weren't necessarily expecting to make a profit out of SC2. Profit would be an added bonus. So the ones going on about "Blizzard only wants to make money", need to rethink. I honestly don't think Dustin Browder is aware of this issue. If he could make units dance, he would. *edit: I get the feeling he doesn't really understand what dancing means though. Could you clarify what you understand as dancing in Starcraft? I think it's a term that can be ment in different way. It can be dancing of armies, of units or events all other the map what could specificly direct towards armies as well but also to the way players spread their bases.
Dancing is used the way he describes as well. Moving back and forth between shots.
In BW it was often used to describe moving shot though, since those units dance real good.
Although I admit dragoons and hydras were known to dance on occasion too. So I was wrong, or I need to modify that to say "he doesn't fully understand what dance means".
|
i think blizzard considered the moving shot a bug in the beginning of sc.
|
Stuff like moving shot was certainly not intentional in the development of SC1. However once the eSports scene took off, they weren't about to go and change it. I think from a game development perspective it feels like a cop-out whenever there is an intentional technique in the game that isn't readily obvious to the player, such as moving shot. I'm not saying moving shot is bad in SC1, but I do think that Blizzard wants to avoid purposefully putting something into SC2 that most people aren't going to be able to figure out unless someone else had discovered it first.
Instead what Blizzard wants to do is provide a control scheme that anyone can understand and use, but that requires a high level of skill and strategy to employ most successfully.
Also I think a few pages back someone mentioned Diablo and Diablo 2 and claimed that Diablo 2 was better in every way. Not true! Pretty much all fans of the Diablo series agree that the original game was the scariest and most atmospheric. The limited mobility of the character in Diablo 1 made every decision to walk through the door into that next room of the dungeon a commitment, whereas in Diablo 2 the gameplay is a little more fluid and forgiving. What I'm trying to say is that causing any kind of change from one sequel to the next is probably going to represent some kind of tradeoff.
|
Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert.
-Better in all categories.
Dustin Browder was a lead designer on that xD
Hope?
|
On April 29 2010 01:26 Scapalexis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 23:38 fantomex wrote:
Where this goes off the rails, especially in the comments, is when people say SC2 has little or no micro. I've been Blink micro that rivals anything in SC1 and almost anything in WC3. Force field micro is also impressive (and more importantly, accessible to players with lower APM).
Right now all the energy is focused on developing strategy (or what some people call the "meta game"). Having a better strategy than your opponent is always going to trump any amount of micro in BW or SC2. And the strategy landscape changes with every patch. As time passes, strategies will be optimized, and the difference between victory and defeat will be micro, at which point you will see the development of micro tactics like you saw with BW (and then the whole process starts over because one new micro tactic can completely change optimal strategy).
Nothing in BW is an "accident". Blizzard could have fixed any of those bugs. They chose not to which means its now part of the design of the game, regardless of original intention. So please, enough with this canard. Please, blink micro is the exact same as undead crypt fiend burrow micro in wc3, it's been around for years, and any scrub player could do it. It's not complicated. The examples people defending the micro in sc2 is laughable. Force field micro? It's probably the most basic and necessary thing of the protoss arsenal. Force field is the power behind 4 warpgate rushes, 3 warpgate rushes, and required for early defense. It's almost crucial in taking on a midgame zerg army. I would guess that 90% of platinum protoss players are competent in using force field. It does not separate the skill level between good players and bad players. I'm not trying to attack you, but citing these examples as micro in sc2 is off base. I agree that strategies change from patch to patch, but that's entirely due to nerfs and buffs, and the resulting shifts to counter. It's not because we're "discovering" new strategies, it's because those strategies were already present, but less effective as the previously (possibly overpowered) strategies.
No they aren't
People are rarely placing their forcefields optimally, and generally are just spamming FFs across the whole army, which works because FF is so fucking powerful anyways.
|
I pretty much agree with the OP, and that Browder quote" was funny!
|
Nice response by lalush in go4sc2:
(at the end of game 3 when it's clear he looses 1:2): "Just a bunch of guessing games, good luck you will need it."
I do agree with this statement though, sadly, many people won't take it seriously as it was written like a GG so many will think it's just frustration.
|
No they aren't
People are rarely placing their forcefields optimally, and generally are just spamming FFs across the whole army, which works because FF is so fucking powerful anyways.
1.) How do you define optimally? It's not hard to cut off ~50% of the army, limiting damage. Sure, there might be a mathematical proof that cutting off 40%, or 60%, is "optimal" to let you win with the most number of units saved. There's hardly a way to prove there's "optimal" use of force field.
2.) Does it make a difference, let alone a large difference if you force field "optimally"? If you're only competent rather than perfect in using force fields, maybe you end with 40% of your army still intact versus 50%. If you flat out mess up on a force field (say, blocking an all in ling attack), sure it makes a difference whether you win or lose, but I'm assuming a reasonable level of play by both players. I've never played/seen a game where I think, if that force field was one matrix to the left, the protoss would have won that battle.
3.) Of all the possibilities in the game, I DO feel that force field is the most "risk/reward" type of plays, which lends to more exciting moments. However, where else do you see it in this game? Stepping back from this specific case, is there anything that resembles reaver micro, lurker/defiler play, marine/medic play, wraith micro in sc2?
|
Medivac/thor is the SC2 equivalent of Reaver dropping, and is used in much the same manner versus Zerg. The reaper is basically a fragile cliff-hopping vulture, and harasses much the same way (though not quite as powerful).
The lurker will be in SC2 with an expansion, and that will bring back your infantry micro and lurker play.
So basically it boils down to moving shot micro with the wraith/muta once again? The issue is just not as simple as "just add it to the units", damage, build times, everything would have to be redone. If its even possible to balance something like 15+ mutas able to moving shot.
|
On April 29 2010 03:01 Half wrote:Dustin Browder was a lead designer on that xD Hope?
He wasn't. You pobably think of the remakes, but this guy was talking about the original C&C:RA released in 1996 or shit. The best C&C game there ever was, especially the newer ones are just worse remakes of bad predecessors.
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade (2007), Blizzard Entertainment Inc.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth II (2006), Electronic Arts, Inc.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth (2004), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Generals (2003), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour (2003), Electronic Arts Ltda.
Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Emperor: Battle for Dune (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Dominion Wars (2001), Simon & Schuster Interactive
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 (Collector's Edition) (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
Dark Reign 2 (2000), Activision Publishing, Inc.
Battlezone (1998), Activision, Inc.
Vigilante 8 (1998), Activision, Inc.
Heavy Gear (1997), Activision, Inc.
MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries (1996), Activision, Inc.
MechWarrior 2: Ghost Bear's Legacy (1995), Activision, Inc.
This is what Browder has worked on and what I can see is, since he went from Activision to EA he just worked on pretty lame games of which none showed any longevity. This isn't too unlikely to happen to SC2 in its current state as well.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
Red Alert 2 and Generals were amazing games, don't you dare put him down for that. Same with MechWarrior 2.
|
On April 29 2010 04:07 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:01 Half wrote:
Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert.
-Better in all categories.
Dustin Browder was a lead designer on that xD Hope? This is what Browder has worked on and what I can see is, since he went from Activision to EA he just worked on pretty lame games of which none showed any longevity. This isn't too unlikely to happen to SC2 in its current state as well.
Do us both a favor then and stay away from anything SC 2 related.
|
On April 29 2010 04:13 Qikz wrote:
Red Alert 2 and Generals were amazing games, don't you dare put him down for that. Same with MechWarrior 2.
Didn't play RA2, but I defnitly can say that it's not possible to say CnC Generals was any close to Broodwar in terms of long time gameplay.
|
Excellent read. Addresses all my main concerns with this game. I hope Blizzard comes across this.
|
Dark Reign was also really good. Oh wait. It's Dark Reign 2.
|
On April 29 2010 04:01 PanzerDragoon wrote:
Medivac/thor is the SC2 equivalent of Reaver dropping, and is used in much the same manner versus Zerg. The reaper is basically a fragile cliff-hopping vulture, and harasses much the same way (though not quite as powerful).
The lurker will be in SC2 with an expansion, and that will bring back your infantry micro and lurker play.
So basically it boils down to moving shot micro with the wraith/muta once again? The issue is just not as simple as "just add it to the units", damage, build times, everything would have to be redone. If its even possible to balance something like 15+ mutas able to moving shot.
Re: Reaver drop vs Thor drop. In my opinion, these are similar, but differ on their design and potential. First I would like to establish my belief that drops in sc2 have far less potential than bw. That does not mean that drops will never deal as much damage, but that potential is lower. Thors can dish out quite a bit, but only to single targets; drops in broodwar, due to aoe scarabs, or for terran, siege and mines, can often create gamewinning advantages in economy. Furthermore, sc2 macro mechanics cause explosions in the number of workers, especially for zerg, so doing less potential damage with the drop often puts the aggressor even more behind. In addition, with the lower potential for damage, the risk reward factor for the drop decreases; basically, if you spend all your attention on the micro of the thor drop, does it really do much more damage? In contrast, in broodwar, a player truly intent on reaver harass has the ability to end games simply on the strength of their micro. To be fair, I have only seen a handful of thor drops in games, but they are met with little to no success in my experience; that does not mean that future players cannot make this strategy work, but I have not seen it thus far.
Re: Reaper versus vulture. The reaper is really relegated to cheese builds, and doesn't see any play in the mid-late game at all. I think it would have a similar role as the vulture in harassment if 1.) the hellion were not in the game, and 2.) if they had more hp. Suppose they had 80 hp, like vulture did in broodwar, and came with speed (disregard the build requirements for a moment). Then they would have an extremely strong micro component, where you send small packs of reapers to expansions to kill workers. In addition, I feel that the 50 gas requirement is a huge detriment, as it's hard to justify spending 50 gas into a unit that can't actually fight in large armies effectively. In comparison, vultures had huge advantages in utility (mines), durability, cost, and combat effectiveness.
Re: Lurker. It is likely it's included, but of course, no sure thing. It should have been in sc2 pre-expansion, I would forsee much more army control (rather than 1 control group play for the majority of players), and map control. I think these two factors are far more necessary than, for example, moving shot. Right now, most games are large armies thrown against one another, rather than players having the ability to position before the fight and winning with the inferior army.
Re: moving shot. I think moving shot is a small issue within the realm of micro that could improve sc2, but is not the crux of the argument. It would be great to see in the game, and yes, it would cause a rebalancing of stats. There's a good chance it would be overpowered with mutas. But I hope that you see from the preceding paragraphs that there are many more things I am concerned about; moving shot is just one of them.
|
United Kingdom12024 Posts
On April 29 2010 04:21 teekesselchen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 04:13 Qikz wrote:
Red Alert 2 and Generals were amazing games, don't you dare put him down for that. Same with MechWarrior 2. Didn't play RA2, but I defnitly can say that it's not possible to say CnC Generals was any close to Broodwar in terms of long time gameplay.
I'm not saying it was, you know what generals was? It was a game, you could play for fun. You didn't go on a forum where everyone was moaning about how something small was left out of it compared to RA2 and just had fun playing it and worked with what they had. It was never built to be as long lasting as Brood War and if anything, Brood War lasting so long was an absaloute fluke and I'm a big BW fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
