| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On April 30 2010 02:14 NegativeInfinity wrote: Nony actually agreed about the moving shot thing, if any of you would actually read what he said... He agreed on the moving shot thing. He did not agree on the "gloom and doom" sentiment of the rest of the article, which a lot of others are agreeing with (and then bashing Blizzard/Dustin Browder like a bunch of idiot children) | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On April 30 2010 02:03 LaLuSh wrote: I'd be interested to hear about some of the opinions in the comments to the article. I saw temujin and strelok reply among others, it'd be interesting to hear what they had to say. Here you go. Temujin: "After reading that I don't even want to try SC2" Adolf[RA]: "Despite how primitive this sounds, SC2 is a different game. The article is too personal, like Lalush is offended by something. Maybe by D players that beat him. This is OK though, the game is new, you should drastically change your old habits. However some of what he says is true." Strelok: "There are some valid points in the article, but it is very superficial and is mostly just BW nostalgia. Blizzard had a definite goal: make SC as accessible as possible. If a 100 apm noob can delay Jaedong's expansion - then he will play again and again, but if he is just getting raped in 10 different ways - he most likely won't." Hireling: "Comparing totally different units is stupid. Your point about vikings - they use their ground mode for example to harass scvs in TvT. But what if they didn't have to transform to do that? I didn't read the rest, this was enough for me to see that the author wasn't trying to really prove Blizzard's mistakes. Just shit-talking SC2." other people: "SC2 is made to be a mind game, more chess-like. To play SC1 like chess you need to practice control/multitasking for 5 years straight, SC2 is not like that. Maybe 50 apm noob that has enough brains to stall an exp and still have time to do something else is nothing wrong?" "Noob-friendly game is not a e-sport. People spend months practicing muta-stacking to win tourneys. SC2 is a good RTS, not really an e-sport." "Article is full of shit, I didn't get why he compares it to War3 and then proceeds to rant about a random micro trick that isn't even important enough to make the game. IMO he's just a hater, paranoid one at that." "If any noob can win in SC2, then why the same people - Dimaga, Demuslim, Nazgul etc. - keep winning the tourneys?" | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
I think leaving in wc3-level micro (no move shot) for sc2 is fine. this way ppl cant exploit a fast move shot unit that ppl with superior micro cant really micro against. Right now if you have superior micro, you still can beat the superior army. If my hypothesis on move shot is correct, then this thread shouldn’t be micro where art though but instead cheap micro tricks where art thou? | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On April 30 2010 02:52 Random() wrote: Here you go. Temujin: "After reading that I don't even want to try SC2" Adolf[RA]: "Despite how primitive this sounds, SC2 is a different game. The article is too personal, like Lalush is offended by something. Maybe by D players that beat him. This is OK though, the game is new, you should drastically change your old habits. However some of what he says is true." Strelok: "There are some valid points in the article, but it is very superficial and is mostly just BW nostalgia. Blizzard had a definite goal: make SC as accessible as possible. If a 100 apm noob can delay Jaedong's expansion - then he will play again and again, but if he is just getting raped in 10 different ways - he most likely won't." Hireling: "Comparing totally different units is stupid. Your point about vikings - they use their ground mode for example to harass scvs in TvT. But what if they didn't have to transform to do that? I didn't read the rest, this was enough for me to see that the author wasn't trying to really prove Blizzard's mistakes. Just shit-talking SC2." other people: "SC2 is made to be a mind game, more chess-like. To play SC1 like chess you need to practice control/multitasking for 5 years straight, SC2 is not like that. Maybe 50 apm noob that has enough brains to stall an exp and still have time to do something else is nothing wrong?" "Noob-friendly game is not a e-sport. People spend months practicing muta-stacking to win tourneys. SC2 is a good RTS, not really an e-sport." "Article is full of shit, I didn't get why he compares it to War3 and then proceeds to rant about a random micro trick that isn't even important enough to make the game. IMO he's just a hater, paranoid one at that." "If any noob can win in SC2, then why the same people - Dimaga, Demuslim, Nazgul etc. - keep winning the tourneys?" Thanks. Although I don't recall comparing it to Warcraft 3. Maybe the translation of the article wasn't spot on  | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 30 2010 01:58 PanzerDragoon wrote: If strategy is something someone is born with, why do they have military officer's schools? War colleges? Military training? One of the dumbest posts in a thread full of them. Strategy is learned, not an innate talent. Those schools bring out and refine talent. You realize that art schools exist too right? Painting is a talent, as is singing, . Also, not everyone is aware of there talent, those schools have bring it out. By the way, using the chess analogy so many of you like to make, top level chess is dominated by highly intelligent people. Sure any old guy can memorize openings, but only the talented make it far. Also, tell me how you can LEARN to make BETTER decisions on the fly? | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On April 30 2010 04:15 buhhy wrote: Those schools bring out and refine talent. You realize that art schools exist too right? Painting is a talent, as is singing, . Also, not everyone is aware of there talent, those schools have bring it out. By the way, using the chess analogy so many of you like to make, top level chess is dominated by highly intelligent people. Sure any old guy can memorize openings, but only the talented make it far. Also, tell me how you can LEARN to make BETTER decisions on the fly? Practicing and training so that making those decisions becomes second nature? I mean, if your reasoning is correct (and it isn't), you've basically invalidated 200-some years of military theory. Officer's schools basically build from the ground-up. You don't need any kind of talent, you just need the leadership ability and the desire to learn everything else, and the mental makeup to handle pressure situations (but with training you can improve that) Chess is dominated by people with incredible memory and the ability to memorize possible moves many turns in advance and predict them. | ||
|
jewce
United States68 Posts
On April 29 2010 07:03 TSL-Lore wrote: the issue is very simple. Basically, Blizzard needs to do this: 1. your units perform better when you pay more (correct) attention to them. 2. if your army A-moves into an enemy army and the enemy is paying close attention to his army, you should lose. This was a very true set of rules that blizzard implemented in SCBW. take for example, if you pay attention to your lurker placement (good attention) and the terran enemy A-moves his MM into your lurkers (no attention), then the terran will lose his army. This kind of relationship is relatively non-existent in SC2B I like this comment, because if you read only the suggestions, at least in my opinion, it seems like a legitimate suggestion, and not a nostalgic one. Rather than saying you want all these specific aspects of brood war back, he states that if you and your opponent have an equally powerful army (im hoping and assuming this is implied) whoever has the superior unit control that makes their units more effective than they would normally be, if they were simply attack moved, should be the one who comes on top in the battle. I just like the post because its not attacking anyone, and in my opinion isn't simply just asking for a brood war remake. I think Starcraft 2 should be its own game, but I do believe the player who works harder should be rewarded. Edit: grammar fail. | ||
|
verrater
United States11 Posts
Blizzard have been doing that with all their new games. Wow is the same. | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On April 30 2010 05:40 verrater wrote: That is what Blizzard is about now in the 21th century. Making the most money and selling the most games. A simpler game is easier to sell to the casual fans and there are a lot more casual fans than hardcore ones (even if you include korea!) Blizzard have been doing that with all their new games. Wow is the same. So you're saying there weren't casual fans in the 10 million or so who bought SC1? It was all hardcore ICCUPers and 1v1ers? | ||
|
madcow305
United States152 Posts
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved. In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles. Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans. Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things: 1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much? 2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward? 3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted. 4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots. 5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP. 6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible. These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time. You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage. You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any. Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with. Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1: 1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks. 2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill. That's it. Two steps. Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On April 30 2010 04:23 PanzerDragoon wrote: Practicing and training so that making those decisions becomes second nature? I mean, if your reasoning is correct (and it isn't), you've basically invalidated 200-some years of military theory. Officer's schools basically build from the ground-up. You don't need any kind of talent, you just need the leadership ability and the desire to learn everything else, and the mental makeup to handle pressure situations (but with training you can improve that) Chess is dominated by people with incredible memory and the ability to memorize possible moves many turns in advance and predict them. Sorry to say this, but talent is innate. You may not realize talent, but it's something you're born with. Stop mixing up talent and skill. Skill is something that is learned, while talent is entirely natural. Also, memory is a talent. It isn't skill. Skill would be applying your memory to use, while talent is the raw ability to memorize things in the first place. Chess is dominated by talented, skilled people. If, however, someone with more talent than skill met his opposite, the talented one would most likely win. Skill is inhibited in that you are limited by your talent. While it is possible to succeed even with little talent, a talented person will make much more efficient use of their skill. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
I think the Teamliquid communities mind is pretty much made up on this issue. I mrean just look at the results of this poll. On April 30 2010 00:49 Archerofaiur wrote: | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On April 30 2010 06:14 Zeke50100 wrote: Sorry to say this, but talent is innate. You may not realize talent, but it's something you're born with. Stop mixing up talent and skill. Skill is something that is learned, while talent is entirely natural. Also, memory is a talent. It isn't skill. Skill would be applying your memory to use, while talent is the raw ability to memorize things in the first place. Chess is dominated by talented, skilled people. If, however, someone with more talent than skill met his opposite, the talented one would most likely win. Skill is inhibited in that you are limited by your talent. While it is possible to succeed even with little talent, a talented person will make much more efficient use of their skill. So then a chess playing computer was born with "talent"? Chess is a game with perfect information, so all a computer needs to do is know every possible move/outcome. Starcraft talent is not innate. Basketball talent is not innate. People may have certain abilities that make them better at this, but hard work and practice is just as important. LeBron James and Michael Jordan are supremely talented, but they also work/worked their fucking ass off. Talent is something that improves with practice. No one is born a prime strategic thinker, just like no one is born knowing how to play piano or shoot a basketball. Those are learned skills honed over time and thousands of hours of practice. | ||
|
Rokk
United States425 Posts
On April 30 2010 06:28 Archerofaiur wrote: 60 frickin pages! I wonder why this article hasnt been featured in TL news yet? Do the TL leadership disagree with the conclusions of the article? I think the Teamliquid communities mind is pretty much made up on this issue. I mrean just look at the results of this poll. Probably because of the tone of the article. Nony posted early on agreeing with the points about moving shots, but strongly disagreed with how the article presented itself. | ||
|
Fizban140
Korea (South)129 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On April 30 2010 06:35 Rokk wrote: Probably because of the tone of the article. Nony posted early on agreeing with the points about moving shots, but strongly disagreed with how the article presented itself. I agree. I think if the author had taken a more appropriate tone it would have been featured. | ||
|
andyrichdale
New Zealand90 Posts
On April 30 2010 06:02 madcow305 wrote: + Show Spoiler + I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot. Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved. In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles. Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans. Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things: 1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much? 2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward? 3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted. 4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots. 5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP. 6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible. These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time. You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage. You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any. Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with. Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1: 1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks. 2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill. That's it. Two steps. Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2. My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common SC2 battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't reached the top level of micro as you outline here. Watching some of the top-level tournaments the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities. I come from an Age of Empires background so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible. My opinion is that most of the maps we have so far are too restrictive with choke points etc so that most battles are just head on collisions whereas if there were more open spaces you could have your army spread out to perform flanking manuevers on weaker parts of your enemy's army. E.G have your Zealots / Hellions / Zerglings off to the side to ambush your opponents rear line of Hydras. While your Immortals / Mauraders / Roaches hold the front line... | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
Do we forget how good vultures were? They didn't even splash! I'd rather we just have the vulture anyways, much more iconic unit than the stupid flaming dune-buggy =\ | ||
|
GaMeOfFeAr
United States26 Posts
On April 30 2010 06:28 Archerofaiur wrote: 60 frickin pages! I wonder why this article hasnt been featured in TL news yet? Do the TL leadership disagree with the conclusions of the article? I think the Teamliquid communities mind is pretty much made up on this issue. I mrean just look at the results of this poll. He would need to tone down the criticism of Dustin Browder and other aspects of the article which come off as personal venting. I don't agree with some of his points, but he could have approached it with a more analytical mindset. | ||
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
On April 30 2010 06:35 PanzerDragoon wrote: So then a chess playing computer was born with "talent"? Chess is a game with perfect information, so all a computer needs to do is know every possible move/outcome. Starcraft talent is not innate. Basketball talent is not innate. People may have certain abilities that make them better at this, but hard work and practice is just as important. LeBron James and Michael Jordan are supremely talented, but they also work/worked their fucking ass off. Talent is something that improves with practice. No one is born a prime strategic thinker, just like no one is born knowing how to play piano or shoot a basketball. Those are learned skills honed over time and thousands of hours of practice. Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself. Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue. It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself. The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
