|
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
I so agree with that, and I am going to have a lot of fun with the singleplayer. But for multiplayer I rather consider start playing sc1.
What do you think will happen when all the strategies are discovered and all the outcomes of different actions are known by the community?
I honestly think that all progamers will start to play random, just like TLO does. because if it doesn't take a lot of effort to master the controll, than getting a head start to your enemy by forcing him to scout early will make the biggest impact.
|
On May 06 2010 06:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:41 KungKras wrote:On May 05 2010 04:47 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 09:38 buhhy wrote: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.
Football is a very bad comparison because it has no skill cap what so ever unlike SC2.
BW is mostly figured out, but still very exiting to watch because of the amazing things that the players are doing. Most new strategies are very dependant on micro and execution. If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease.
|
On May 04 2010 00:21 ktffang wrote:Deadalnix said it best in that in sc1 there is "almost indefinitely progress" that's lackin in sc2.
Happy to read that because english isn't my first language and I not really gifted for foreign languages :D
|
Hopefully blizzard will fix some of this, if the issues you discussed were fixed I think that starcraft II would be a much more fun game to play.
|
On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:
If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease.
And how would you go about proving that?
|
On May 06 2010 07:08 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:
If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease.
And how would you go about proving that?
Look at the games that doesn't have an execution cap. There are vary few strategies because eventually one strategy will be considered the best and then everyone will use it.
|
On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 06 2010 06:41 KungKras wrote:On May 05 2010 04:47 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 09:38 buhhy wrote: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. Football is a very bad comparison because it has no skill cap what so ever unlike SC2. BW is mostly figured out, but still very exiting to watch because of the amazing things that the players are doing. Most new strategies are very dependant on micro and execution. If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease.
There IS no skill cap in SC2, because it is ever-changing. Even if you DO claim there is a skill cap, so does SC1 - no matter how fast you click, you are still limited by the game engine.
Also, shut up about this "Oh, there are always new strategies in SC1, unlike SC2" crap. Most new strategies are dependent on micro and execution? Well, in SC2, let's switch that to macro and execution.
Different Strategy / Gameplay =/= LESS Strategy / Gameplay
If we are going to talk about this relative to Moving Shot, well, the lack of moving shot inherently creates a new element in the game. In SC1, you could pop up a StarGate and build a Corsair whenever you see the opponent going Air. In SC2, you know that if you let the opponent obtain air-superiority, it will be that much harder to take it away. It forces you to re-think your strategy, and somehow integrate it into your play to always accomodate for it. It wasn't as important in SC1 because as long as you could click 5 times a second, you could kill air-superiority.
The lack of moving shot inherently shifts focus on micro towards macro. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subjective, and I personally think it is a good thing.
|
You can moving shot with Broodlords. It's funny.
|
On May 06 2010 07:12 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 06:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 06 2010 06:41 KungKras wrote:On May 05 2010 04:47 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 09:38 buhhy wrote: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. Football is a very bad comparison because it has no skill cap what so ever unlike SC2. BW is mostly figured out, but still very exiting to watch because of the amazing things that the players are doing. Most new strategies are very dependant on micro and execution. If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease. There IS no skill cap in SC2, because it is ever-changing. Even if you DO claim there is a skill cap, so does SC1 - no matter how fast you click, you are still limited by the game engine. Also, shut up about this "Oh, there are always new strategies in SC1, unlike SC2" crap. Most new strategies are dependent on micro and execution? Well, in SC2, let's switch that to macro and execution. Different Strategy / Gameplay =/= LESS Strategy / Gameplay If we are going to talk about this relative to Moving Shot, well, the lack of moving shot inherently creates a new element in the game. In SC1, you could pop up a StarGate and build a Corsair whenever you see the opponent going Air. In SC2, you know that if you let the opponent obtain air-superiority, it will be that much harder to take it away. It forces you to re-think your strategy, and somehow integrate it into your play to always accomodate for it. It wasn't as important in SC1 because as long as you could click 5 times a second, you could kill air-superiority. The lack of moving shot inherently shifts focus on micro towards macro. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subjective, and I personally think it is a good thing.
How does that increase strategical options? Limiting your options means less strategical depth.
The lower the mechanical requirement, the more luck is involved in the choice of BO's.
|
Just look at the modern strategy that come in BW.
In PvZ you have for exemple harass with corsair and reaver/shuttle or dark templar.
This strategy is quite recent beacause it require an incredible APM and multitasking to be really effective. This comme up because the skill of the players improves.
In sc2, you can clearly see the limit. Micro is limite to use the good spell at the right time and place, build the good unit, place them correctly and focus the right target. OK, right, this is not easy, and I'm not able to handle all this perfectly myslef.
But no doubt really gifted player will. They will because all these micro stuff was present in sc:bw.
What is missing in sc2 is units that become more powerfull with more attention of the player, like corsair, mutalisk, vultures, wraight, were in sc1.
A video of highlight of sc2 were posted in this thread. Just compare it with any random video of highlight from sc:bw you can find on youtube. The gap is huge !
|
On May 06 2010 07:25 deadalnix wrote:
Just look at the modern strategy that come in BW.
In PvZ you have for exemple harass with corsair and reaver/shuttle or dark templar.
This strategy is quite recent beacause it require an incredible APM and multitasking to be really effective. This comme up because the skill of the players improves.
In sc2, you can clearly see the limit. Micro is limite to use the good spell at the right time and place, build the good unit, place them correctly and focus the right target. OK, right, this is not easy, and I'm not able to handle all this perfectly myslef.
But no doubt really gifted player will. They will because all these micro stuff was present in sc2.
What is missing in sc2 is units that become mire powerfull with more attention of the player, like corsair, mutalisk, vultures, wraight, where in sc1.
A video of highlight of sc2 were posted in this thread. Just compare it with any random video of highlight from sc:bw you can find on youtube. The gap is huge !
Great post - I totally agree.
|
On May 06 2010 07:25 deadalnix wrote:
Just look at the modern strategy that come in BW.
In PvZ you have for exemple harass with corsair and reaver/shuttle or dark templar.
This strategy is quite recent beacause it require an incredible APM and multitasking to be really effective. This comme up because the skill of the players improves.
In sc2, you can clearly see the limit. Micro is limite to use the good spell at the right time and place, build the good unit, place them correctly and focus the right target. OK, right, this is not easy, and I'm not able to handle all this perfectly myslef.
But no doubt really gifted player will. They will because all these micro stuff was present in sc2.
What is missing in sc2 is units that become mire powerfull with more attention of the player, like corsair, mutalisk, vultures, wraight, where in sc1.
A video of highlight of sc2 were posted in this thread. Just compare it with any random video of highlight from sc:bw you can find on youtube. The gap is huge !
Because we all know that SCII has been out nearly as along as BW
|
On May 06 2010 07:12 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 06:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 06 2010 06:41 KungKras wrote:On May 05 2010 04:47 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 09:38 buhhy wrote: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. Football is a very bad comparison because it has no skill cap what so ever unlike SC2. BW is mostly figured out, but still very exiting to watch because of the amazing things that the players are doing. Most new strategies are very dependant on micro and execution. If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease. There IS no skill cap in SC2, because it is ever-changing. Even if you DO claim there is a skill cap, so does SC1 - no matter how fast you click, you are still limited by the game engine. Also, shut up about this "Oh, there are always new strategies in SC1, unlike SC2" crap. Most new strategies are dependent on micro and execution? Well, in SC2, let's switch that to macro and execution. Different Strategy / Gameplay =/= LESS Strategy / Gameplay If we are going to talk about this relative to Moving Shot, well, the lack of moving shot inherently creates a new element in the game. In SC1, you could pop up a StarGate and build a Corsair whenever you see the opponent going Air. In SC2, you know that if you let the opponent obtain air-superiority, it will be that much harder to take it away. It forces you to re-think your strategy, and somehow integrate it into your play to always accomodate for it. It wasn't as important in SC1 because as long as you could click 5 times a second, you could kill air-superiority. The lack of moving shot inherently shifts focus on micro towards macro. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subjective, and I personally think it is a good thing.
It only shifts focus because it takes away micro.
Taking stuff that helps a game away is never a good thing, ever. The only difference between the two scenarios that you described was that in BW, you make units AND micro them to counter the enemy air superiority, and in SC2 you just make units.
"It wasn't as important in SC1 because as long as you could click 5 times a second, you could kill air-superiority."
You make it sound like microing well and managing to even the odds in the air is unfair. If the other player has good micro too, he should be able to keep air superiority, but if he's a bad player he will lose it to someone that has better mico than him. Fair and exciting to watch and play.
In BW you know how many corsairs you have to get against the enemy just as you do in SC2. In SC2, the macro is the same, but the micro is not there. Also, you can shut up about "It's a different game it's different not worse" stuff. I wouldn't care if the micro was different as long as it was there and was exciting to watch and play and learn to do. The fact is that Starcraft 2 isn't worse because it is different, but it is different AND worse.
You will see exactly how subjective the focus of the game is when the audience watching SC2 progaming starts wondering why the progamers don't do cool stuff with the units like in BW. What's there to repace it? Awesome macro that makes you go "wow"? I don't think so.
|
On May 06 2010 07:32 Level10Peon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:25 deadalnix wrote:
Just look at the modern strategy that come in BW.
In PvZ you have for exemple harass with corsair and reaver/shuttle or dark templar.
This strategy is quite recent beacause it require an incredible APM and multitasking to be really effective. This comme up because the skill of the players improves.
In sc2, you can clearly see the limit. Micro is limite to use the good spell at the right time and place, build the good unit, place them correctly and focus the right target. OK, right, this is not easy, and I'm not able to handle all this perfectly myslef.
But no doubt really gifted player will. They will because all these micro stuff was present in sc2.
What is missing in sc2 is units that become mire powerfull with more attention of the player, like corsair, mutalisk, vultures, wraight, where in sc1.
A video of highlight of sc2 were posted in this thread. Just compare it with any random video of highlight from sc:bw you can find on youtube. The gap is huge ! Because we all know that SCII has been out nearly as along as BW
Doesn't matter since the players these days are good and actively looking for micro unlike when SC was first launched. At least some kind of cool unit control or micro should have been discovered. This has been said a million times, people that just mindlessly post about the time difference should be banned.
|
I only read part of the first post, but honestly the sc2 muta micro was way better than the bw micro in the video (there was 3 or 4 times the mutas just sat there in a group and if the bw zerg micro'd the mutas to kill the sairs he could've easily done so) and plenty of good points are made, but the bottom line is the phoenix is a very different unit from the corsair and the corsair has that low of damage because it has a slight splash. Micro does exist in sc2beta, it's just different. Also it's still beta.
|
On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:12 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 06:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 06 2010 06:41 KungKras wrote:On May 05 2010 04:47 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 09:38 buhhy wrote: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. Football is a very bad comparison because it has no skill cap what so ever unlike SC2. BW is mostly figured out, but still very exiting to watch because of the amazing things that the players are doing. Most new strategies are very dependant on micro and execution. If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease. There IS no skill cap in SC2, because it is ever-changing. Even if you DO claim there is a skill cap, so does SC1 - no matter how fast you click, you are still limited by the game engine. Also, shut up about this "Oh, there are always new strategies in SC1, unlike SC2" crap. Most new strategies are dependent on micro and execution? Well, in SC2, let's switch that to macro and execution. Different Strategy / Gameplay =/= LESS Strategy / Gameplay If we are going to talk about this relative to Moving Shot, well, the lack of moving shot inherently creates a new element in the game. In SC1, you could pop up a StarGate and build a Corsair whenever you see the opponent going Air. In SC2, you know that if you let the opponent obtain air-superiority, it will be that much harder to take it away. It forces you to re-think your strategy, and somehow integrate it into your play to always accomodate for it. It wasn't as important in SC1 because as long as you could click 5 times a second, you could kill air-superiority. The lack of moving shot inherently shifts focus on micro towards macro. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subjective, and I personally think it is a good thing. It only shifts focus because it takes away micro. Taking stuff that helps a game away is never a good thing, ever. The only difference between the two scenarios that you described was that in BW, you make units AND micro them to counter the enemy air superiority, and in SC2 you just make units. "It wasn't as important in SC1 because as long as you could click 5 times a second, you could kill air-superiority." You make it sound like microing well and managing to even the odds in the air is unfair. If the other player has good micro too, he should be able to keep air superiority, but if he's a bad player he will lose it to someone that has better mico than him. Fair and exciting to watch and play. In BW you know how many corsairs you have to get against the enemy just as you do in SC2. In SC2, the macro is the same, but the micro is not there. Also, you can shut up about "It's a different game it's different not worse" stuff. I wouldn't care if the micro was different as long as it was there and was exciting to watch and play and learn to do. The fact is that Starcraft 2 isn't worse because it is different, but it is different AND worse. You will see exactly how subjective the focus of the game is when the audience watching SC2 progaming starts wondering why the progamers don't do cool stuff with the units like in BW. What's there to repace it? Awesome macro that makes you go "wow"? I don't think so.
Here's a question you should ask yourself: What's bad about taking something away if it changes the way the game is played, regardless of whether the thing taken away is micro or macro?
It doesn't matter if moving shot was good for the game. Taking it away creates a NEW element (read: Strategy). Taking stuff away that helps a game is never a good thing? That's just false. Taking stuff away that helps the game shifts the focus from micro to macro (although it's not just macro; it's strategy as a whole)
Starcraft isn't a tactics game; it's a strategy game. I personally think the way SC2 "does it" is great; it is much more focused on strategy, and having less tactic doesn't matter in the way you describe it.
Stop viewing the lack of moving shot (or tactics as a whole) as something that is taken away, but more as something that is changed. If Game X is 20% Strategy, 80% Tactic, would you consider the sequel that consists of 80% Strategy, 20% Tactic as inferior because that number next to Tactic is less?
Oh, and macro =/= strategy. Strategy is your game plan as a whole, consisting of your build order, your general long-term objectives, and how you plan on carrying out the above. Macro is your management of economics, which does not mean the same thing as Strategy at all.
|
On May 06 2010 06:56 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:On May 06 2010 06:41 KungKras wrote:On May 05 2010 04:47 Rabiator wrote:On May 03 2010 09:38 buhhy wrote: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. Football is a very bad comparison because it has no skill cap what so ever unlike SC2. BW is mostly figured out, but still very exiting to watch because of the amazing things that the players are doing. Most new strategies are very dependant on micro and execution. If Blizzard lowers the execution cap, the number of strategies will decrease.
Pretty sure its way too early to say SC2 has no skillcap. That's hyperbole.
|
very well written, is all I'm going to say.
|
On May 06 2010 07:44 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:32 Level10Peon wrote:On May 06 2010 07:25 deadalnix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Just look at the modern strategy that come in BW.
In PvZ you have for exemple harass with corsair and reaver/shuttle or dark templar.
This strategy is quite recent beacause it require an incredible APM and multitasking to be really effective. This comme up because the skill of the players improves.
In sc2, you can clearly see the limit. Micro is limite to use the good spell at the right time and place, build the good unit, place them correctly and focus the right target. OK, right, this is not easy, and I'm not able to handle all this perfectly myslef.
But no doubt really gifted player will. They will because all these micro stuff was present in sc2.
What is missing in sc2 is units that become mire powerfull with more attention of the player, like corsair, mutalisk, vultures, wraight, where in sc1.
A video of highlight of sc2 were posted in this thread. Just compare it with any random video of highlight from sc:bw you can find on youtube. The gap is huge ! Because we all know that SCII has been out nearly as along as BW Doesn't matter since the players these days are good and actively looking for micro unlike when SC was first launched. At least some kind of cool unit control or micro should have been discovered. This has been said a million times, people that just mindlessly post about the time difference should be banned.
Back when BW came out people did suck. People nowadays are much better at rts than they were when BW came out and thus SC2 is already a much higher level than BW was for a long time.  iloveoov won his first MSL in 2003. That was 7 years ago. Even if we assume current SC2 ability is as high as early pro-bw was iloveoov won a starleague 7 years ago. The pro scene has had 7 years at a high level to develop (i chose oov because if i chose BoxeR or Nada someone would say they still sucked back then, I don't think many people will contend that BW was played at a high level by the time iloveoov came around). SC2 beta has been out for a couple of months, if you think that is even remotely comparable to the 7 years that Brood War has had since iloveoov won his first starleague, then you have some weird perceptions.
(Not saying that there are no micro-related problems with SC2 but to compare it to 2010 Brood War is not a fair comparison)
|
i totally agree with the OP.
blizzard should add more things that allow micro. i'm a pure RTS newbie ( just play sc1 two or three months before beta) but i think its so fun to see two different kind of playstyle( you play more macro oriented gameplay or more micro oriented - both should be viable). The state of the game right now is like 80% macro and 20%micro (and it is pretty basic micro: positioning & casting :x) and we have hardly any tools to make the difference with gosu micro 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
