EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 57
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fatduck
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 29 2010 07:13 fatduck wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me that the attack animations are so much longer because they look cool, and it makes battles look more exciting. Because that's what makes most people think a game looks cool, and makes them want to buy it. It's not because of some nefarious anti-micro, anti-moving shot faction at Blizzard, you just aren't in the target demographic for Starcraft 2. Could we stop these retarded conspiracy theories? This may be a valid point if this were why Marauder took so long to attack, but this is AIR UNITS. Who HAVE no attack aftercast. | ||
|
fatduck
United States148 Posts
On April 29 2010 07:18 Half wrote: Could we stop these retarded conspiracy theories? This may be a valid point if this were why Marauder took so long to attack, but this is AIR UNITS. Who HAVE no attack aftercast. Retarded conspiracy theory? Did you even read my post? I specifically said that retarded conspiracy theories about reducing the effect of micro are, well, retarded. It's much more likely that, rather than trying to make the game "more micro" or "more macro" or whatever, they're just (as they've said many times) "making cool units, that are fun to use"...or does no one believe the words out of Blizzard's own mouth? Edit: Yea, I still don't get your post. Watch the videos: the phoenix glides while the two laser shots fly out of the side of the ship and arc around/toward the muta. You regain control after this animation finishes. If they didn't do this, the phoenix would look like it was flying through its own laser beams, or that they were being generated from weird places on the craft. TO CLARIFY: I don't think Blizzard eliminated moving shot because they hate progamers or are money-hungry wow demons who love casual players and hate nerds. I don't think there's some conspiracy to make BW players hate SC2. I don't think Dustin Browder is an idiot. What I do think, is that Blizzard feels that moving shot looks "weird", or "buggy", and they probably added the control lag after a shot to make the unit's actions seem more fluid and predictable, because it's 2010 and most people won't say "oh, that looks really odd but it's the only way BW micro tricks will work", they'll say "wtf is up with this engine?" They could implement moving shot in different ways, like allowing the hellion's flame turret to rotate as the vehicle moves, etc (think light tanks in Red Alert), but that's not quite the "micro trick" moving shot BW had, and would have all kinds of effects on balance. Maybe that's the direction they should go, but it's not quite what the OP is talking about. | ||
|
Bwenjarin Raffrack
United States322 Posts
There were maybe five or six people who were legitimately arguing against the re-implementation of a moving shot to diversify micro, and I applaud the few level-headed posters on both sides of the matter. The rest were mostly the knee-jerk canned responses and various ad homistrawmamajokexpletives that are in every thread that criticizes Starcraft 2. You know, the ones that say, "Now I know SC2 isn't perfect..." but then go on to vehemently demonize anyone with any actual criticism of it. If someone says that SC2 micro is a watered-down subset of BW and you know absolutely nothing about competitive BW, maybe you shouldn't respond as if you do. For example, the many of you who wrote that the micro skills required are new and different, what are they? None of you actually said. For those who assumed the OP said there's no micro in SC2 or wants to turn it into BW, did you read it correctly? Did you even try, or did you stop listening because it was a dissenting opinion? Did you even stop to acknowledge the effort that went into his post, or could you not wait to flame him because you disagreed with it? Typical rehashed arguments: 1. This is SC2, stop trying to remake Brood War. Your argument is invalid. 2. This is beta, you have to give it ten years to develop like BW. Your argument is invalid. 3. This is beta, BW probably sucked in beta. Your argument is invalid. 4. If you love BW so much, why don't you marry it? QQ more, grandpa. Oh, and your argument is invalid. And so on, followed by the typical rebuttals that barely get read. Then other people come into the thread without reading it, say the same things and find a quote of someone they agree with based on their limited reading comprehension, and the cycle continues for almost 60 pages. Seriously, almost 60 pages in this thread, but how much actual discussion took place compared to flaming and rehashed arguments? Discourse shouldn't stop when someone yells, "BETA!" and tentative concerns shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as petty resistance to change. Stop it, people. We can all do better than that. You can do better than that. You can read critically without taking things personally; you can make a logical argument without attacking strawmen. Do it. On April 29 2010 05:20 micronesia wrote: Every god damn time I see this thread in the sidebar for a quarter of a second I think it's referring to me and it's driving me crazy. <3 We were wondering where you were. Obviously we wanted you to weigh in on the issue. Also, there was some guy in the thread who wrote "ad homonym," and I just want to thank you for brightening my day. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 29 2010 07:26 fatduck wrote: Yea, I still don't get your post. Watch the videos: the phoenix glides while the two laser shots fly out of the side of the ship and arc around/toward the muta. You regain control after this animation finishes. If they didn't do this, the phoenix would look like it was flying through its own laser beams, or that they were being generated from weird places on the craft. Except for the fact that Pheonixes do move after they attack, incidentally, only in the forward direction. Consequently potentially causing the graphical issue you said they tried to avoid. Hence Gliding shot. | ||
|
ST3V3
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
fatduck
United States148 Posts
On April 29 2010 08:01 Half wrote: Except for the fact that Pheonixes do move after they attack, incidentally, only in the forward direction. Consequently potentially causing the graphical issue you said they tried to avoid. Hence Gliding shot. That's the point...the movement had to be included in the attack animation, in order to give the appearance of moving shot. But it's not really moving shot, because you lack unit control during the glide. It can't cause any sort of animation glitch, because the entire animation is hardcoded - the phoenix will do the exact same thing every time it attacks. If it could turn in any direction instantly, it wouldn't look as fluid, and you couldn't have the cool animation of energy beams flowing out of the sides and then converging near the point of the ship. | ||
|
Slurgi
United States118 Posts
Although I was a huge fan of BW, I'm one of the "it's a new game" camp you mentioned in your post. There are aspects I wholeheartedly support, including unlimited selection, MBS, and rally to minerals. Now, all that said, I tend to agree with you in regards to moving shot, to an extent. My first experience with hellions was that they were fine conceptually but felt wrong. I pinpointed that to fact that they couldn't move and shoot, and indeed I think that's why they'll never be as fun as vultures. There are some "move and shoot" units that have a shorter firing time than their cooldown, however. Marines and marauders seem to be that way... as do hellions (shudder). Sentries are like that as well, actually. I don't feel like there should be many ground units that have moving shot, to be quite honest (hellions may be the only exception), but I would be happy to see moving shot implemented into air units. I don't know that I'll feel terrible if it isn't, though. Also, your comments about no chat rooms, no DND, etc... are you sure that those features won't be implemented upon release? I imagine that they will. Is there any sort of official word that states to the contrary...? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 29 2010 10:51 fatduck wrote: That's the point...the movement had to be included in the attack animation, in order to give the appearance of moving shot. But it's not really moving shot, because you lack unit control during the glide. It can't cause any sort of animation glitch, because the entire animation is hardcoded - the phoenix will do the exact same thing every time it attacks. If it could turn in any direction instantly, it wouldn't look as fluid, and you couldn't have the cool animation of energy beams flowing out of the sides and then converging near the point of the ship. That still doesn't explain the lack of moving shot on all the other units the OP mentioned....Who have no animation prior to the shot or after. The Duration of the glide is significantly longer then the duration of the animation too. | ||
|
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
On April 29 2010 01:27 teekesselchen wrote: "We're not trying to be innovative. We're not trying to make a game that will be a good eSportsgame for more than half a year. Actually, we didn't even try make a good game, we just thought about mixing some SC with CnC, but it will be more successfull as it's labelled Starcraft." Did he really say this? I sounds like what one would put in a parody interview. | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On April 29 2010 07:27 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote: Thank you for the thought-provoking post, LaLuSh. I even read through the whole thread, partly because it's an interesting topic, but mostly because I hate myself and enjoy suffering. There were maybe five or six people who were legitimately arguing against the re-implementation of a moving shot to diversify micro, and I applaud the few level-headed posters on both sides of the matter. The rest were mostly the knee-jerk canned responses and various ad homistrawmamajokexpletives that are in every thread that criticizes Starcraft 2. You know, the ones that say, "Now I know SC2 isn't perfect..." but then go on to vehemently demonize anyone with any actual criticism of it. If someone says that SC2 micro is a watered-down subset of BW and you know absolutely nothing about competitive BW, maybe you shouldn't respond as if you do. For example, the many of you who wrote that the micro skills required are new and different, what are they? None of you actually said. For those who assumed the OP said there's no micro in SC2 or wants to turn it into BW, did you read it correctly? Did you even try, or did you stop listening because it was a dissenting opinion? Did you even stop to acknowledge the effort that went into his post, or could you not wait to flame him because you disagreed with it? Typical rehashed arguments: 1. This is SC2, stop trying to remake Brood War. Your argument is invalid. 2. This is beta, you have to give it ten years to develop like BW. Your argument is invalid. 3. This is beta, BW probably sucked in beta. Your argument is invalid. 4. If you love BW so much, why don't you marry it? QQ more, grandpa. Oh, and your argument is invalid. And so on, followed by the typical rebuttals that barely get read. Then other people come into the thread without reading it, say the same things and find a quote of someone they agree with based on their limited reading comprehension, and the cycle continues for almost 60 pages. Seriously, almost 60 pages in this thread, but how much actual discussion took place compared to flaming and rehashed arguments? Discourse shouldn't stop when someone yells, "BETA!" and tentative concerns shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as petty resistance to change. Stop it, people. We can all do better than that. You can do better than that. You can read critically without taking things personally; you can make a logical argument without attacking strawmen. Do it. <3 We were wondering where you were. Obviously we wanted you to weigh in on the issue. Also, there was some guy in the thread who wrote "ad homonym," and I just want to thank you for brightening my day. So you just cherry-pick which "pros" you want to listen to (basically, the ones that concur with the viewpoint you already held) and ignore the pros that might disagree with you (Nony, Day9, Drone, etc) | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 29 2010 11:19 PanzerDragoon wrote: So you just cherry-pick which "pros" you want to listen to (basically, the ones that concur with the viewpoint you already held) and ignore the pros that might disagree with you (Nony, Day9, Drone, etc) NoNY and Drone both agreed with the only point that mattered, the inclusion of moving shot at some level in SC2. Didn't even see Day[9] post in any way regarding this. | ||
|
Snake626
United States2 Posts
For the love of God, the game isnt even out yet, its just Beta and your already complaining how you cant do 1 or 2 things you could in the original. Here for you to feel better how about they name it something else so your not butt hurt when it doesnt AUTOMATICALLY fill the shoes that the original set into place. Please before you set a huge number of paragraphs how you cant do what you used to beable to do actually think about the fact there are probably more things in this game then at first sight, and its up to us to find them out just as it was in the original. I want Starcraft 2, not Starcraft 1.1 or 1.5. I want a new game where i can learn new things, invent my own strategies (Starcraft was out for 10 years and they still invented new ways to play and new ways to micro, Beta has had a few months and its already getting beat with a stick for not living up to the "Hard Core Gamers" expectations). Just give the game time. Remember when everyone complained, WOW SC2 LOOKS SO CARTOONY WITH ITS RENDERS, ITS LIKE WOW NOW. Didnt they fix that up quite nice? I think so. Give Blizzard some space to work on THEIR game. Not yours. | ||
|
klez.gen
United States50 Posts
I firmly believe that voting with one's money is the only way to successfully bring change in this lowest common denominator video gaming environment. Hopefully more people than just you and I will be choosing to vote "no" with a lack of money to Blizzard if the game remains hyper focused on achievements and heavy handed "more units = win" mechanics. | ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
On April 29 2010 11:29 Snake626 wrote: It's so cute when someone thinks they can complain how a game isnt similar enough to the original and some complain its not different enough. I guess people are too lazy to actually come up with NEW strategies and NEW ways to micro. We should all yell at blizzard because they didnt want to actually HARD CODE GLITCHES, into their new game. Sorry, they should put back dark archons for the kids who miss multi racing on fastest, put back vultures for kids who miss patrol micro (yes because patrol was intended to be used like that), Etc. etc. For the love of God, the game isnt even out yet, its just Beta and your already complaining how you cant do 1 or 2 things you could in the original. Here for you to feel better how about they name it something else so your not butt hurt when it doesnt AUTOMATICALLY fill the shoes that the original set into place. Please before you set a huge number of paragraphs how you cant do what you used to beable to do actually think about the fact there are probably more things in this game then at first sight, and its up to us to find them out just as it was in the original. I want Starcraft 2, not Starcraft 1.1 or 1.5. I want a new game where i can learn new things, invent my own strategies (Starcraft was out for 10 years and they still invented new ways to play and new ways to micro, Beta has had a few months and its already getting beat with a stick for not living up to the "Hard Core Gamers" expectations). Just give the game time. Remember when everyone complained, WOW SC2 LOOKS SO CARTOONY WITH ITS RENDERS, ITS LIKE WOW NOW. Didnt they fix that up quite nice? I think so. Give Blizzard some space to work on THEIR game. Not yours. If starcraft broodwar was a flashlight, sc2 is like giving someone a candle and then telling them to innovate to the level of the flashlight. There is no new micro in sc2 They just removed the majority of micro from sc:bw thats that | ||
|
Shaoling
Sweden344 Posts
But i do agree that micro isnt as present as it should be. There is still micro, imagine two even sized armies, if one would lay down some positioning and right focusing etc that one would win over the other if it just simply A-moved. And it is just that. Its moving your army in position, focusing the right guy and casting the right spell at the right place and hope for the best. nothing more actionwise really. In sc2 hellion vs zergling = attack if you have enough, retreat if you dont. In BW one vulture could do shit tonnes of damage(compared to hellion) to a much larger zergling force, because of micro. And why do i favor BW micro in this situation? And not favoring BW macro in the mbs and automine situation? Well, cause in BW macro situation you get a handicap so you'll simply have a harder time(Doesnt really make sense funwise, just competitionwise). In the micro situation you have to execute a skill that is fun, competitive and not retarded like just adding a handicap. You add a skill to the game. kind of like aim in cs. This stops the game from being completely strategic and adding more action to it. Just like BW had. Id also like to add, i think the micro addition is like the only thing sc2 is missing. i dont want the lurker back or the tanks to be better, so no im not wanting BW. The new macromechanics is a big step up imo. Hope i gave something unique to the thread otherwise im glad you already share or are aware of my opinion!  | ||
|
BOOWOO
United States83 Posts
It seems to me like SC2 has been designed to be a game much more focused on macro elements (scouting, adapting, resourcing and army size/composition). All of the new macro mechanics are awesome in my opinion, and I don't think the new approach to the game is completely devastating. But I think there are some key micro elements missing. Although some of them, which were basically glitches, I'm ok with being removed (patrol, stacking, etc.) I agree that the moving shot mechanics of air units should be reimplemented. They make sense and "feel" right, if that makes sense. However, on the ground, it feels like most units should not be able to do these kinds of maneuvers. It looks buggy, and really, ground units should suffer from a lack of mobility. This may be a dumb comparison, but when you talk about the devolution of micro, it reminds me of the shift from competitive Halo 2 to competitive Halo 3. In Halo 2, there were a ton of micro-like mechanics (reload and melee animation cancels) which were removed in Halo 3. The ability to execute these glitches in Halo 2 definitely created a wider skill gap, and there was a large part of the competitive community that was upset with the fact that the skill gap was going to be narrowed by the removal of them. I for one was all for the removal of these kinds of exploits in H3, as I am for their removal in SC2. Mutalisks weren't designed to be stacked on top of each other and become an untargetable ball, and patrol wasn't designed to make units pull off crazy moving shots at ridiculous angles. I'm ok with the removal of these kinds of "glitchy" moves, because it gave more power to units that weren't designed to be that powerful. Sure, watching Jaedong pull off epic 2 control group muta micro against marines, goliaths and turrets is a thing of beauty. But really, doesn't it just boil down to him abusing an exploit in the game that wasn't meant to work that way? Is it ok that he can make mutalisks dominate against a group of units and static defenses that are supposed to excel at killing air? I tend to think this kind of exploiting is a negative thing, not a positive. While SC2 looks like it will end up with a narrower skill gap with the removal of these kinds of things, I still think it will end up being a good competitive game. Maybe not as good as its predecessor, which is arguably the best competitive video game ever made, but it will be good. There will still be plenty of factors to separate players (strategy, adaptability, etc.). | ||
|
Rokk
United States425 Posts
On April 29 2010 11:29 Snake626 wrote: It's so cute when someone thinks they can complain how a game isnt similar enough to the original and some complain its not different enough. I guess people are too lazy to actually come up with NEW strategies and NEW ways to micro. We should all yell at blizzard because they didnt want to actually HARD CODE GLITCHES, into their new game. Sorry, they should put back dark archons for the kids who miss multi racing on fastest, put back vultures for kids who miss patrol micro (yes because patrol was intended to be used like that), Etc. etc. On April 29 2010 07:27 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote: For example, the many of you who wrote that the micro skills required are new and different, what are they? None of you actually said. Thanks for reading. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On April 29 2010 11:59 Xenocide_Knight wrote: There is no new micro in sc2 Who said there had to be new micro? Oh and you actually can do new funky stuff with the queued commands, but that isnt clicky-hungry enough for you I suppose. Burrowing injured Roaches from your pack during the fight and blinking Stalkers apparently isnt enough micro for you, but then nobody forces you to buy the game. I have already seen a TvT with both of them getting Thors and dropping them onto the others base. The result was like a gunfight from a Western ... whoever activated his 250mm strike cannon faster (stun + 500 dmg = dead opposing Thor) won the duel. No new micro indeed ... just not the stuff you are looking for. How long exactly did it take to find out about the moving Muta shot and stacking in BW? Years if my information is correct. | ||
|
scwizard
United States1195 Posts
| ||
| ||
