|
On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point.
-_- That's the main point...
So you pretty much disagree with almost everything while agreeing with the core of the argument?
Can't go wrong with that I suppose...
|
To everyone who keeps saying that the game engine might not support;
The Galaxy Editor is out, and there is an attack speed variable. Why not just test setting the attack animation to be shorter than the deceleration animation?
OT: Muta micro has to be my favourite thing in Starcraft. Here's hoping it gets back into SC2.
|
It's a nice read and all, but I disagree with most of everything you said. No offense, but micro didn't disappear; it changed.
It's easy to make moving shots by playing with the acceleration factor in the editor. If pheonixes don't move-shoot, it's because Blizzards wants it like that. The article is depressingly nostalgic.
I especially dislike your comparison between pheonixes and corsairs. You were microing in both cases, but it's no surprise the corsair were better; they were designed with an aoe attack. People should stop comparing and appreciate SC2 for the potential it has.
Moving shots would be fun to have though. Probably not with the hellion though, that would be way too powerful.
|
|
|
It's true, units are much less responsive to control than in BW. It may be a concious decision, but it's a step backwards.
|
Canada5346 Posts
From what I've seen of the Editor, shortening animations and allowing moving shot is well within our power. Someone just needs to make the changes and hopefully the good players will switch over...though a lot of them probably won't because they want to remain "pros" and know they aren't good enough to use BW micro.
|
I also hate the fact that all the units have to pretty much pause to attack. It limits micro in so many ways.
There's always expansion for starcraft 2. Maybe they will include some new micro units or maybe reintroduce some units.
|
Well, latency issues on terrible.net 2.0 prevents move&fire in any form or shape other than the current voidray.
|
great article
hellions really are depressing
|
Scenario 1: You’ve got 3 Vultures and one Bunker guarding your mineral line in Brood War. Your opponent runs in with 8 Hydralisks, and notices your Science facility(applicable to any important building) is out of place and starts picking away at it.
Scenario 2: You’ve got 3 Hellions with infernal preigniters and one Bunker guarding your mineral line in Starcraft 2. Your opponent runs in with 8 Hydralisks and notices your starport is slightly out of place and starts picking away at it.
(Imagine Video here where in the BW example the Hydralisks are attacking the vultures/mines as needed and shoot at the building at leisure, then follow that up by the Hydras sitting there focus firing the Starport and ignoring the Hellions that burn them up in 2 volleys)
Of course the points made in the OP aren't completely baseless but the initial comparison is just wrong. And saying there is no micro in SC2 is just hilarious. Yes mutalisk, wraith and scout micro suffered. However most ground units are actually more microable now than before. And due to certain new ground only units/abilities more important aswell. There have been plenty high calibre games where people made comebacks or survived a BO disadvantage on micro alone. And even with people pulling 300+ battle APM there would always be more that can be done. So while as a former Zerg player I do miss Muta micro there are plenty other awesome micro situations to be encountered in SC2.
|
8316 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:18 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:14 jewce wrote:
Well written post, but I'm going to have to disagree.
Is it not possible that there is new things to be discovered, now I didn't play BW from the beginning, at least from a non-UMS aspect, but I'm pretty sure most of the micro and tactics discovered in the original didn't come out within the first few months and probably even years from when it came out. And from a spectators point of view, when I watch players like NonY in the HDH invitational I find it to be very entertaining. Give the game some time, and let some new things be found. This article to surpass that very basic element of analysis. You're looking at metgagame elements, which will be subject to change, but the post looks at the most basic element of any game, the engine. The BW metagame changed so much in such a positive direction precisely because of all the control and player input, the core element of any E-sport the engine afforded. And the NoNY game was only interesting due to build orders. The actual micro wasn't anything impressive in comparison to BW. I'm not dissing NoNy skill as a player, I'm just saying that it was build order, not play. If that build became standard, their wouldn't be anything impressive about it, while players in SC1 continue to Oh and Ah with the most standard, mundane build orders.
As the person who actually controls Corsairs and Phoenixes, I disagree. This article is pretty much irrelevant to Protoss players. SC:BW micro wasn't more challenging. The multitasking is the challenging part and SC2 is true to that.
Vultures, Mutas, Wraiths -- ok. Yeah they had some challenging and fun micro in BW that depends on moving shot. People would like to see a return of that kind of micro cuz it was like kiting^2. So yeah, give a few units that kind of micro and then re-balance them if needed.
|
While we were busy whining about MBS and macro, Blizzard took the opportunity to remove micro from the game from right under our noses. Hardly anyone noticed.
^ Pretty much a summary of what SC2 turned out to be 
|
Is there a bnet thread for this? if so post it in the OP so we all can spam our micro missing hearts out! :D
|
8316 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:26 Lollersauce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Pretty much disagree with almost everything lalush is saying. The only thing I feel partial toward is that flying units should have a true "moving shot" rather than a "gliding shot." That's a good point. -_- That's the main point... So you pretty much disagree with almost everything while agreeing with the core of the argument? Can't go wrong with that I suppose...
Yeah I'm saying he went waaaaaaay too far talking about design philosophy, game engines, how and why SC:BW was such a good game, etc. It was a bunch of bullshit that will make it easy for a Blizzard employee reading it get a bad feeling. A straight article about how the mechanics of moving shot micro worked in SC:BW along with a reason why it was so great for everyone (healthy for competition, fun to use, fun to watch) and a quick proof that it doesn't really exist in SC2 would have been great.
|
On April 27 2010 09:20 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:15 zomgzergrush wrote:On April 27 2010 09:09 MuffinDude wrote:Yea. the micro mechanics are really really bad in sc2. Great read. On April 27 2010 09:09 zomgzergrush wrote:
The basis of this entire article though is criticizing that a design flaw from bw is not in sc2.
"moving shot" was not the only design flaw in the sc1 engine that contributed largely to competitive skill differences. A myriad of issues and poor design paved the way for all competitive sc1. Scarab AI, ALL UNIT pathing AI, pushing units past minerals, air unit clumping when teaming with units off screen, the list goes on.
You guys really think that Blizz in the development of SC1 decided: Hey, lets make hold position fire faster than attack move and skip the de-acceleration sequence before firing and then don't document it. Or: hey, let's make it so that air units stack when they have something grouped with them off screen. Does that sound realistic to you?
Even though by fixing all these issues, sc2 loses its skill gradient, it is completely unrealistic to expect the design flaws from sc1 to carry to sc2. Then why don't blizzard take the design flaw and actually incorporated into SC2 as they are suppossed to be to increase the skill level. I'll quote my earlier post: However, in terms of movement, most people are looking at it at too high of a level (in developer terms, not skill terms); i.e. hold position gives a moving shot while attack move requires deacceleration. You all need to understand what's happening at a lower level(in developer terms, as in, closer to the code) and that this was not intended behavior, but simply a result of some of the flaws in the engine that were overlooked by most but only really discovered by the real competitive gamers. If you were to ask someone who has never laid eyes on starcraft before to judge ONLY movement between SC1 and SC2, he will without a doubt say that SC2 movement looks more "real" and "right." As bad as it is for competitive gaming, as a finished game in modern game industry, such details are a necessity and outweigh the need for competition.
In the end, this is all about sales. They can say whatever they want about esports and whatnot, but make no mistake, Blizzard is no different from any other game company. Whether it's a newbie buying the game and playing it for a month vs a seasoned veteran who buys it and plays it for years to come, a sale is a sale, and each of those cases count as one.It's very unrealistic to assume that we, the competitive gamers, make up a larger chunk of their sales than the casual gamer. Not to mention the various statements that they want to cater towards the casual gamer. But what will sell more games: Someone using single hellion to kill a bunch of zerglings to buy enough time to get up a bunker and protect his expansion thus saving himself the game in a tournament or league that could possibly be televised, or that same hellion dying for the sake of looking more realistic? I for one would buy the game in the first case just so I could try something like that,
You actually just answered your own question. Think about the number of licenses that are needed in a proleague. Say one for each progamer. say 20 for each venue of televised event for all obs and box players. Few hundred?
How does few hundred compare to the hundred thousands of casual gamers? You won't disagree that the casual gamers will want something more realistic looking, will you? A casual gamer who has no idea that hold position vs attack move in BW even made a difference but only went "oh sc1 sucks coz graphixx r badddd."
|
To be honest I think in sc2 zealots have a moving attack.. Their damage point is so just so low that they damage you the moment their arm is raised.
|
Regardless of whether people ultimately agree with your points, I think the article is insight-fully written and does what no micro article has done before it:
It explains what you mean by micro.
A lot of articles that say micro is dead....just say that. But micro means a lot of things to a lot of people. That you explain what you mean by moving shots and air dancing at least gives us all a frame of reference to determine if you are right or wrong.
I personally agree and disagree wtih some of your points.
I agree with your core points, though I believe you give too much credit to old blizzard and too much hate to the new.
I seriously doubt that blizzard knew they were creating a micro revolution when they created the vulture. It had a different attack mechanic, but back then RTS knowledge was so limited I doubt anyone knew what would eventually happen (afterall, the vulture was originally on the "worst units in SC" list for just about everyone).
I also think the last part of your article (where you basically rail on blizzard) is completely unnecessary, and actually detracts from your point.
You well have a well written article on your hand that I think you tainted with your last several paragraphs. I would remove the emotion, and focus on your well made points.
|
United States11853 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:17 OHtRUe wrote:Show nested quote +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. If its a glitch and it benifits the game then why not keep it in. Also shortening the attack animation of a unit is NOT A GLITCH in no form. Its removing the animation based on the engine with Direct skill. Thinking about it games without the true core of the game not being able to be modded are often saved by "glitches". Halo 1, Halo 2, starcraft in this case, Bunnyhopping (since you think using the engine to your advantage is a glitch) and probably more if i coudl remember
I don't know if you have a QA background or not, but I worked in QA for about 7 years. First of all there are no such things as "glitches", there are bugs and there are intended behaviors. Some things are debatable, like interrupting an attack animation to preserve movement speed. It's not inherently intuitive or obvious, so by that token it's more likely to be a bug. On the other hand, it adds depth to the game because it takes considerable time investment to perform this series of actions, so by that token it's possibly allowable. It's very unlikely that was intended, and this is reflected by newer games like War3 and SC2 that don't mimic this behavior. It's still doable, you just have to commit to an attack for a slightly longer period than in BW. Secondly, the method used to initiate the action does not in any way excuse or justify the existence of the bug. It's a false argument.
Strafejumping in Q3, bunny-hopping in CS, straferunning in Doom, these are all examples of bugs. That doesn't make them good or bad. They improve the depth of the game, and that's it.
Something people have to realize is that there are many different aspects of "skill". The discovery of the moving shot was a game-changer, and there have been many other similar game-changing discoveries in BW's history such as the ones I mentioned in my previous post. Does that mean that before those techniques were discovered that BW was considered skill-capped? Does a more perfect engine mean that SC2 is skill-capped?
|
On April 27 2010 09:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 09:18 Half wrote:On April 27 2010 09:14 jewce wrote:
Well written post, but I'm going to have to disagree.
Is it not possible that there is new things to be discovered, now I didn't play BW from the beginning, at least from a non-UMS aspect, but I'm pretty sure most of the micro and tactics discovered in the original didn't come out within the first few months and probably even years from when it came out. And from a spectators point of view, when I watch players like NonY in the HDH invitational I find it to be very entertaining. Give the game some time, and let some new things be found. This article to surpass that very basic element of analysis. You're looking at metgagame elements, which will be subject to change, but the post looks at the most basic element of any game, the engine. The BW metagame changed so much in such a positive direction precisely because of all the control and player input, the core element of any E-sport the engine afforded. And the NoNY game was only interesting due to build orders. The actual micro wasn't anything impressive in comparison to BW. I'm not dissing NoNy skill as a player, I'm just saying that it was build order, not play. If that build became standard, their wouldn't be anything impressive about it, while players in SC1 continue to Oh and Ah with the most standard, mundane build orders. As the person who actually controls Corsairs and Phoenixes, I disagree. This article is pretty much irrelevant to Protoss players. SC:BW micro wasn't more challenging. The multitasking is the challenging part and SC2 is true to that. Vultures, Mutas, Wraiths -- ok. Yeah they had some challenging and fun micro in BW that depends on moving shot. People would like to see a return of that kind of micro cuz it was like kiting^2. So yeah, give a few units that kind of micro and then re-balance them if needed.
I wasn't so much comparing Corsairs to Phoenixes (which I agree is a bit of a flawed comparison), and both weren't incredibly micro intensive, I was just telling that guy that the micro, as you said, wasn't super impressive, but rather you played a unique build order he had never seen executed with that degree of finesse in a competitive environment before.
I mean, unlike Pheonixes, Mutalisks are used very commonly, and control relatively similarly (In SC2) and I don't think I've ever seen anyone been slightly impressed with Mutalisk micro.
I also think the last part of your article (where you basically rail on blizzard) is completely unnecessary, and actually detracts from your point.
word. I mean, Teamliquid threads about miss rate didn't posit "Due to the lack of miss rates and how it detracts from SC2 positional play, SC2 is completely skill-less". It stated that miss rates would positively impact SC2 play. Most of your suggestions would too, but SC2 does have micro, so making ludicrous exaggerations hurts your point.
|
Hell yeah! Starcraft 2 is the successor to the RTS! I'm willing to accept difference but if basics like micro and macro philosophies are different from the beginning, I rather you call it Starcrust (featuring starcraft lore).
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
