On May 06 2010 04:00 BigDates wrote: I do miss moving shot, however i think that the game is becomming alot easier to play, which is actually very good, as it can boost the popularity of the community.
I don't think that this assumption is in any way true...
Think of yourself as someone new to RTS-games, will you really think about something like "moving-shot" when deciding whether to buy the game or not?
Also, ppl that actually want to play competetively and aren't total morrons, will soon see that stuff like that is what will make SC2 interesting to play and watch in the long run.
I myself can't watch SC2 VoD's or Replays anymore - it's just too boring. I also don't play SC2 anymore really, after a few weeks of beta and maybe 800 games. Though I'm still watching almost every single proleague, osl and msl VoD and happil playing SC:BW... ^^'
Well, first off, the tone of the article is just plain hostile. Even if the points he makes are correct...
This says more about your loyalty towards a video game company than anything else. Also your centrist attitude on this topic won't lead to anything. Look at countries run by centrist politics, nothing gets done one way or another.
There's a REAL problem with Blizzard lying aboud their reason for not including LAN play. It's a REAL issue that Blizzard decided to sell a game in three parts, costing as much as a gaming console. Sure, they have the right to remove features from their products, but deceiving the consumers about the reasons for these cuts raises some moral questions. Companies do have moral obligations to their customers, honesty is very important there. Blizzard are deliberately lying to and deceiving their customers, many of whom pre-ordered the game based on previous products.
So by your logic it was wrong for Blizzard to sell Starcraft 1 in two parts then?
u cant compare 1998 with 2010 simply because the comunity is much bigger and people actually know whats possible and if there is something we had in the year 1998 why isnt it possible in 2010?...if releasing the game in 3 parts means for blizzard not to have chat channels,lan mode,switching between realms and so on... then yes it is wrong to sell a game in 3 parts
Releasing the game with 2 expansion packs means Starcraft 2 gets to come out in 2010 instead of 2012.
Weren't you all bitching about how long you had to wait for SC2 since it had been announced in 07?
Again, did you cry when Brood War was announced, and you had to buy the game in "2 parts"? No, right? Everyone loved the extra content!
Its unreasonable bitching being used to paint Blizzard as some sort of supervillian organization
Well, first off, the tone of the article is just plain hostile. Even if the points he makes are correct...
This says more about your loyalty towards a video game company than anything else. Also your centrist attitude on this topic won't lead to anything. Look at countries run by centrist politics, nothing gets done one way or another.
There's a REAL problem with Blizzard lying aboud their reason for not including LAN play. It's a REAL issue that Blizzard decided to sell a game in three parts, costing as much as a gaming console. Sure, they have the right to remove features from their products, but deceiving the consumers about the reasons for these cuts raises some moral questions. Companies do have moral obligations to their customers, honesty is very important there. Blizzard are deliberately lying to and deceiving their customers, many of whom pre-ordered the game based on previous products.
So by your logic it was wrong for Blizzard to sell Starcraft 1 in two parts then?
u cant compare 1998 with 2010 simply because the comunity is much bigger and people actually know whats possible and if there is something we had in the year 1998 why isnt it possible in 2010?...if releasing the game in 3 parts means for blizzard not to have chat channels,lan mode,switching between realms and so on... then yes it is wrong to sell a game in 3 parts
Again, did you cry when Brood War was announced, and you had to buy the game in "2 parts"? No, right? Everyone loved the extra content!
I sure would have! but I got Starcraft in 1999 so both were already out.
Well, first off, the tone of the article is just plain hostile. Even if the points he makes are correct...
This says more about your loyalty towards a video game company than anything else. Also your centrist attitude on this topic won't lead to anything. Look at countries run by centrist politics, nothing gets done one way or another.
There's a REAL problem with Blizzard lying aboud their reason for not including LAN play. It's a REAL issue that Blizzard decided to sell a game in three parts, costing as much as a gaming console. Sure, they have the right to remove features from their products, but deceiving the consumers about the reasons for these cuts raises some moral questions. Companies do have moral obligations to their customers, honesty is very important there. Blizzard are deliberately lying to and deceiving their customers, many of whom pre-ordered the game based on previous products.
So by your logic it was wrong for Blizzard to sell Starcraft 1 in two parts then?
u cant compare 1998 with 2010 simply because the comunity is much bigger and people actually know whats possible and if there is something we had in the year 1998 why isnt it possible in 2010?...if releasing the game in 3 parts means for blizzard not to have chat channels,lan mode,switching between realms and so on... then yes it is wrong to sell a game in 3 parts
Again, did you cry when Brood War was announced, and you had to buy the game in "2 parts"? No, right? Everyone loved the extra content!
I sure would have! but I got Starcraft in 1999 so both were already out.
this thread actually makes me really really mad and agressive. so unlogic and dumb answers by almost everyone. especially those newb registered "February 2010", who played whatever games and have no clue what the name "starcraft" was and should be about.
goddammit, can't we just ban all of them and be the community pre-sc2-beta. i never posted much bu i really enjoiyed it here. but lately it just pisses me off.
On May 06 2010 04:36 sCuMBaG wrote: this thread actually makes me really really mad and agressive. so unlogic and dumb answers by almost everyone. especially those newb registered "February 2010", who played whatever games and have no clue what the name "starcraft" was and should be about.
goddammit, can't we just ban all of them and be the community pre-sc2-beta. i never posted much bu i really enjoiyed it here. but lately it just pisses me off.
I actually have to agree here: People that don't know anything about what made SC:BW such a great game and do just not see SC2's problems post like they have it all figured out.
Basically, anyone that speaks out against changes with engine considering moving shot, changes in the current highground-mechanic, changes in the current hard-counter-system etc. just don't get it. Anyone that knows SC and gives a crap about how SC2 will turn out just knows that these things matter, especially in a as highly evolved, big and extremely competetive Scene as SC2 will surely have.
Because everybody who registered before 2010 is a fricken genius, and everybody who registered during 2010 is retarded and can't figure things out, right?
Anyone who speaks out against changes in the engine to become more SC-like is because they don't WANT the engine to change, not because they're ignorant idiots (which, by the way, isn't defined by whether or not you worship SC).
I hate when people confuse "Will not have a competitive scene" with "Will not have a competitive scene that is exactly the same as SC"
Oh, and I'm calling it: somebody will say "I hate when people think SC2 will have a competitive scene the way it is." Too bad that is mainly derived from the second statement from the line above.
It's funny when fans claim they deserve a game, or some aspect of a game and ask for it. These people don't care about us, we're just wallets to them, all they really care about is how much they can rip off before the game is declared trash by word of mouth. They don't share our passion for the game or care about it's legacy. I know this because they do a good job at distracting my 100 apm noob attention with pretty graphics and gadgets, so this means that not only will us fans buy it, but every other rts noob, so the blizzard team are actually doing a good job, at achieving their objective taht is, which is selling tons of copies and making ridiculous amounts of money by turning us into slaves like the wow players. I personally have no faith in the blizzard team, but I really appreciate the efforts made by the high level members of the starcraft community to turn this game into a goog sequel.
I am rather new to RTS games and started playing in bronze. After figuring out the very basics I moved upwards in my division until place 1. Than I had to play against really good players. In my 8th game with Protoss I (Bronze rank 1), actually beat another Protoss (Plat rank1)..even though my hotkeys are broken and I mostly played mice only...ending up 41 apm (myself) vs 143 apm (enemy), when all I did was basicly a-move...which makes me wonder if sc2 will ever be suitable as a "real" e-sport.
On May 06 2010 06:08 Zombee wrote: Hm, I agree with your points in that article.
I am rather new to RTS games and started playing in bronze. After figuring out the very basics I moved upwards in my division until place 1. Than I had to play against really good players. In my 8th game with Protoss I (Bronze rank 1), actually beat another Protoss (Plat rank1)..even though my hotkeys are broken and I mostly played mice only...ending up 41 apm (myself) vs 143 apm (enemy), when all I did was basicly a-move...which makes me wonder if sc2 will ever be suitable as a "real" e-sport.
If you posted the replay, we could tell. You'll lose a game if you have an inferior strategy, no matter how ridiculously fast you can click (which, to me, is fair. It's not Real Time APM, after all)
On May 06 2010 05:48 bubusls wrote: It's funny when fans claim they deserve a game, or some aspect of a game and ask for it. These people don't care about us, we're just wallets to them, all they really care about is how much they can rip off before the game is declared trash by word of mouth. They don't share our passion for the game or care about it's legacy. I know this because they do a good job at distracting my 100 apm noob attention with pretty graphics and gadgets, so this means that not only will us fans buy it, but every other rts noob, so the blizzard team are actually doing a good job, at achieving their objective taht is, which is selling tons of copies and making ridiculous amounts of money by turning us into slaves like the wow players. I personally have no faith in the blizzard team, but I really appreciate the efforts made by the high level members of the starcraft community to turn this game into a goog sequel.
The only glitch in your logic is that sc2 is by no means graphically stunning, just average. And I doubt that an rts fan gives a damn about graphics, it's the last thing on his mind, he wants a balanced, demanding game which he enjoys in every aspect, right now SC2 doesn't meet these requirements, and it's in blizzard's best interest to remedy that, and they DO know it, they just have a slight moron making executive decisions and they should change that asap, cause I guarantee that nobody is going to buy SC2 for graphics (big lol).
i think the issue of wether blizzard is a company for profit does not mean that there should be an inherently lower skill cap does paint blizz as evil.
E.G. there is no LAN support, why? they have not announced there solution to the problem? why? not looking to work with the community they love so much as they always say.
On May 06 2010 06:26 matthewfoulkes wrote: i think the issue of wether blizzard is a company for profit does not mean that there should be an inherently lower skill cap does paint blizz as evil.
E.G. there is no LAN support, why? they have not announced there solution to the problem? why? not looking to work with the community they love so much as they always say.
There's no LAN support because LAN support is an easy vulnerability to justify piracy. If you can't play multiplayer in any way without a legit key, it removes a hell of a lot of incentive to pirate the game over buying it.
I wonder just how many illegal copies of BW there were in China being used for LAN cafes and such.
On May 06 2010 05:48 bubusls wrote: It's funny when fans claim they deserve a game, or some aspect of a game and ask for it. These people don't care about us, we're just wallets to them, all they really care about is how much they can rip off before the game is declared trash by word of mouth. They don't share our passion for the game or care about it's legacy. I know this because they do a good job at distracting my 100 apm noob attention with pretty graphics and gadgets, so this means that not only will us fans buy it, but every other rts noob, so the blizzard team are actually doing a good job, at achieving their objective taht is, which is selling tons of copies and making ridiculous amounts of money by turning us into slaves like the wow players. I personally have no faith in the blizzard team, but I really appreciate the efforts made by the high level members of the starcraft community to turn this game into a goog sequel.
The company that we are talking about is Blizzard.
They will live and die by how well thier games pleases their fans, that's how they do business, make a game that is so good that people will want to play it for years and tell other people about how fun it is. At least that WAS how they do business. If they start to displease their fans, I suspect there will eventually be a huge backlash. Blizzard should know better than to turn into a normal game company. They weren't like the other game makers, and that's why they got so many fans. They better not forget that.
Plus, when I hear or read that SC2 is not dynamic, and no micro is present, I feel like I've been watching and playing a different game. Sure it's slow and boring; if I'm the one who's playing, but if you get 2 top tear players, there is a recipe for a spectacle of a match. I've watched tons of great and fast games. The first one I can think of is the one with TLO vs. LiquidNazgul, very fast, back and forward, plus, the one where Artosis lost to some great sentry micro and cool use of hallucination by a protoss player who's name I can't quite remember, Voidwards if I'm not mistaking. I can tell where you're knocking with the no micro problem, but once again, I can't forget all the good matches I saw, like this one, posted by HD Sc , just count how many times you hear the word "micro" in it:
On May 03 2010 09:27 Zeke50100 wrote: Why don't you guys make a mod to make every unit have a moving shot and see how it goes? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially since you can actually just replace your cache/assets to play with other people during custom matches.
Although, to be honest, you guys can have fun with your 1 Phoenix v 10 Muta Toss wins battles, because I don't exactly agree with adding something in just to give a superior player a good chance to win with an unreasonably inferior army.
Why shouldn't a superior player utterly crush a worse player?
How do you define "superior player"? Just by a higher APM? Maybe Blizzard wants those with the better decisions to win in Starcraft 2 instead of those who click faster? Also:
On May 01 2010 03:42 Cheebah wrote: 4- And finally, and more importantly, you actually complain over the fact that an RTS (fyi, the S stands for Strategy) game requires more strategic skills than micro? o_0 You remind me of those people who preferred DotA over War3... the ones who judge a player's skill only on his APM -.-
If we get moving shot back into the game why not get the BW unit movement AI as well? But nobody is complaining about that, because the improved AI in SC2 allows for those powerful balls of infantry which demolish everything in seconds.
How do you define "superior strategy"?
Eventually all the strategies of the game will be discovered (and since they are less dependant on execution, there will be fewer strategies)
What do you think will happen when all the strategies are discovered and all the outcomes of different actions are known by the community?
Then strategy skill will mean jack shit and it will all come down to exection. I could try and do flash build against Jaedong, but would I succeed? No, I'd get steamrolled becasue despite my strategy being good, Jaedong's execution would be in a different league.
In a game where all strategies are known, execution will be what sets players apart. Give the game a low skill cap, and who wins will be decided by randomess since players will just chose a strategy and hope it counters what the oponent chose. Boring!
On May 06 2010 05:48 bubusls wrote: It's funny when fans claim they deserve a game, or some aspect of a game and ask for it. These people don't care about us, we're just wallets to them, all they really care about is how much they can rip off before the game is declared trash by word of mouth. They don't share our passion for the game or care about it's legacy. I know this because they do a good job at distracting my 100 apm noob attention with pretty graphics and gadgets, so this means that not only will us fans buy it, but every other rts noob, so the blizzard team are actually doing a good job, at achieving their objective taht is, which is selling tons of copies and making ridiculous amounts of money by turning us into slaves like the wow players. I personally have no faith in the blizzard team, but I really appreciate the efforts made by the high level members of the starcraft community to turn this game into a goog sequel.
The only glitch in your logic is that sc2 is by no means graphically stunning, just average. And I doubt that an rts fan gives a damn about graphics, it's the last thing on his mind, he wants a balanced, demanding game which he enjoys in every aspect, right now SC2 doesn't meet these requirements, and it's in blizzard's best interest to remedy that, and they DO know it, they just have a slight moron making executive decisions and they should change that asap, cause I guarantee that nobody is going to buy SC2 for graphics (big lol).
Yeah, you're right , but it's the best looking rts I've ever seen. lol, course graphics don't matter in an rts, it's not gonna' beat Mass Effect 2 at that or anything. It's just that, I really like playing it, the abilities and gimmicks are cool to watch, like blink and warping in units, I love that stuff, and I feel like I'm being distracted from the things I don't like, like accidentally loosing to a 15 apm player, and LaLush is pulling me back to reality. So that is why I think the game is tricking me into buying it. Your argument is very valid if we're to give blizzard credit, but they seem to be pretty sure about the final game considering they announced a fairly early release date.
On May 03 2010 09:27 Zeke50100 wrote: Why don't you guys make a mod to make every unit have a moving shot and see how it goes? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially since you can actually just replace your cache/assets to play with other people during custom matches.
Although, to be honest, you guys can have fun with your 1 Phoenix v 10 Muta Toss wins battles, because I don't exactly agree with adding something in just to give a superior player a good chance to win with an unreasonably inferior army.
Why shouldn't a superior player utterly crush a worse player?
How do you define "superior player"? Just by a higher APM? Maybe Blizzard wants those with the better decisions to win in Starcraft 2 instead of those who click faster? Also:
On May 01 2010 03:42 Cheebah wrote: 4- And finally, and more importantly, you actually complain over the fact that an RTS (fyi, the S stands for Strategy) game requires more strategic skills than micro? o_0 You remind me of those people who preferred DotA over War3... the ones who judge a player's skill only on his APM -.-
If we get moving shot back into the game why not get the BW unit movement AI as well? But nobody is complaining about that, because the improved AI in SC2 allows for those powerful balls of infantry which demolish everything in seconds.
How do you define "superior strategy"?
Eventually all the strategies of the game will be discovered (and since they are less dependant on execution, there will be fewer strategies)
What do you think will happen when all the strategies are discovered and all the outcomes of different actions are known by the community?
Then strategy skill will mean jack shit and it will all come down to exection. I could try and do flash build against Jaedong, but would I succeed? No, I'd get steamrolled becasue despite my strategy being good, Jaedong's execution would be in a different league.
In a game where all strategies are known, execution will be what sets players apart. Give the game a low skill cap, and who wins will be decided by randomess since players will just chose a strategy and hope it counters what the oponent chose. Boring!
Ideally, it becomes a game like football, where strategy is always changing and never is completely discovered.
BW is mostly figured out nowadays but every so often we get a new strategy or so.
EPT
, but it's the best looking rts I've ever seen. lol, course graphics don't matter in an rts, it's not gonna' beat Mass Effect 2 at that or anything. It's just that, I really like playing it, the abilities and gimmicks are cool to watch, like blink and warping in units, I love that stuff, and I feel like I'm being distracted from the things I don't like, like accidentally loosing to a 15 apm player, and LaLush is pulling me back to reality. So that is why I think the game is tricking me into buying it. Your argument is very valid if we're to give blizzard credit, but they seem to be pretty sure about the final game considering they announced a fairly early release date. 
