|
On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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.
You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway because I want you to rethink your stance on the subject.
What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too.
"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)"
False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left.
If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it.
The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus"
Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun?
If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great.
Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway.
|
|
|
On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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. You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway. What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too. "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)" False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left. If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it. The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus" Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun? If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great. Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway.
The problem is that with the existence of moving shot, it was not as important to incorporate anti-air into your strategy as much as you need to in SC2. Leaving an element there that was already there? The very existence of moving shot KILLS the element.
Furthermore, how does a change in focus NOT make the game better? Stop and think about your own subjective statements, rather than criticizing mine without acknowledging that yours are subjective as well.
You only think Starcraft is what it is about today (and only believe that SC2 should be the same) because you were exposed to it first (creating an automatic bias towards it), as well as the fact that SC1 happened to be harmonious with your own personal preferences, while SC2 does not.
I'm not saying the game should be ALL strategy, I'm saying it shouldn't be so heavily focused on tactics.
Also, creating a situation in which player A has X strategy and Y tactic, but player B has X strategy and Y+2 Tactic. Of COURSE player B will win! I'm not saying tactics shouldn't matter at all, but that something such as player A with X strategy and Y tactic shouldn't automatically be defeated by someone with a reasonably inferior (read: not terrible, but just generally weaker) strategy and with ridiculous tactic.
Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus.
AGAIN: Just because YOU think something is inferior doesn't mean it IS inferior. That's what I'm saying: It's different, not inferior (different is objective, inferior is subjective). I'm absolutely fine if you think SC2 is terrible, but don't shove it down other peoples' throats by trying to objectively state that is sucks.
|
i love watching new people to the community argue  imma get me a bag of pop corn
To be frank- the fact that sc2 does not cater to hardcore sc players is a good thing. blizz wants to make money and its the only thing that ever mattered to them. i find it funny that people actually think blizz cares about your ideas or opinion. they have already done the market research. they already know who they are making the game for before the presented beta.
its pointless for the sc vet to try and argue for a better game. ANY long time sc player will concede sc1 superiority to sc2. and to all the new players- congrats! i am glad you like sc2. you are the type of person blizz is trying to cater too. they have you by your balls with the alure of a pretty game and flase promises so enjoy because we both know that in a year you will be off and foaming at the mouth with the next new release.
in short- blizz is a business. business do one thing - make money. unless you are a cash cow for blizz- they dont care
|
Agree, without moving shot the Koreans will never play SC2, decreasing eports potential 
|
The idea of "skillcap" being bound to the amount of micro required by a game is retarded. Does chess have micro? So go ahead and tell me you can get "skillcaped" in chess. It's ridiculous.
|
On May 06 2010 09:01 Daedly wrote:Agree, without moving shot the Koreans will never play SC2, decreasing eports potential
Counterexample: I'm a Korean. I play SC2. zomgnowai 
To be honest, SC2 is just another thing Flash is going to dominate. The guy's sense of timing, strategy (as well as adjustment), and macro are all phenomonal.
@DarkSmurf: Technically, Chess DOES have a limit, but even then, you can only find the PROBABILITY that the opponent will do something, so there is no skill cap in that you cannot be perfect at predictions.
|
that same principle applies to starcraft (both 1 and 2)
|
On May 06 2010 08:28 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway. What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too. "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)" False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left. If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it. The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus" Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun? If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great. Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway. The problem is that with the existence of moving shot, it was not as important to incorporate anti-air into your strategy as much as you need to in SC2. Leaving an element there that was already there? The very existence of moving shot KILLS the element. Furthermore, how does a change in focus NOT make the game better? Stop and think about your own subjective statements, rather than criticizing mine without acknowledging that yours are subjective as well. You only think Starcraft is what it is about today (and only believe that SC2 should be the same) because you were exposed to it first (creating an automatic bias towards it), as well as the fact that SC1 happened to be harmonious with your own personal preferences, while SC2 does not. I'm not saying the game should be ALL strategy, I'm saying it shouldn't be so heavily focused on tactics. Also, creating a situation in which player A has X strategy and Y tactic, but player B has X strategy and Y+2 Tactic. Of COURSE player B will win! I'm not saying tactics shouldn't matter at all, but that something such as player A with X strategy and Y tactic shouldn't automatically be defeated by someone with a reasonably inferior (read: not terrible, but just generally weaker) strategy and with ridiculous tactic. Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus. AGAIN: Just because YOU think something is inferior doesn't mean it IS inferior. That's what I'm saying: It's different, not inferior (different is objective, inferior is subjective). I'm absolutely fine if you think SC2 is terrible, but don't shove it down other peoples' throats by trying to objectively state that is sucks.
Starcraft wasn't focused on tactis. It was 50% macro and 50% micro, both were just as important, that is why there were both macro and micro oriented players in the original SC. Warcraft 3 was 20% micro and 80% micro. Your argument fails because you are assuming that Starcraft had a focus on micro while the truth is that it balanced micro and macro and strategy witohut one being more important than the others.
The focus example you used before is also flawed. Here is why. "Starcraft has 80% tactics and 20 % strategy while starcraft 2 has 20% tactics and 80% strategy" You could say that, but it doesn't show the real picture. If you want to illustrate it in numbers, here is how you should do it.
SCBW: 100 tactics points, and 50 strategy points.
SC2: 20 tactics points, and 40 strategy points. (Yes, the game has even less strategy than BW as it stands now because of fewer viable build orders) Less strategy AND less tactics, how is that not inferior?
Do you get the picture?
Also, you seem oblivious to the fact that being able to do cool stuff with your units is FUN and a highlight of starcraft, and that fun is replaced with nothing in SC2. Starcraft 2 may not be a bad strategy game, but this is a sequel, it's not a new IP. It should hold the values of its predecessor and improve them, but nothing has improved.
Of course people will compare SC2 to SC. What do you want us to compare it to, C&C Red Alert?
"Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus."
Way to be objective there. What gives you the right to decide what an RTS should focus on? I say this. Starcraft 2 should be what starcraft was but better. It should retain and build upon the values of the original regardless of your opinions about what makes an RTS. SC 2 should be a fun and challenging game first and an RTS second. I wouldn't care about the micro being different, as long as it held the same values as starcraft. But no the micro isn't just different, it's less. Microing units is fun. getting frustrated when they don't obey is not, simple as that.
Here another fact that doesn't have anything to do with my opinion. Strategies in games get figured out, that's why games that rely on strategy have poor pro-scenes. Once a game is figured out, strategy alone won't win games. Starcraft 2 is according to Blizzard supposed to make E-sports mainstream worldwide and not just in Korea. See a problem?
|
On May 06 2010 08:58 Misrah wrote:i love watching new people to the community argue imma get me a bag of pop corn To be frank- the fact that sc2 does not cater to hardcore sc players is a good thing. blizz wants to make money and its the only thing that ever mattered to them. i find it funny that people actually think blizz cares about your ideas or opinion. they have already done the market research. they already know who they are making the game for before the presented beta. its pointless for the sc vet to try and argue for a better game. ANY long time sc player will concede sc1 superiority to sc2. and to all the new players- congrats! i am glad you like sc2. you are the type of person blizz is trying to cater too. they have you by your balls with the alure of a pretty game and flase promises so enjoy because we both know that in a year you will be off and foaming at the mouth with the next new release. in short- blizz is a business. business do one thing - make money. unless you are a cash cow for blizz- they dont care
You make it sound like Blizzard thinks just like the average game company.
I used to like Blizzard becasue they were not like the average game company
|
On May 06 2010 08:28 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway. What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too. "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)" False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left. If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it. The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus" Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun? If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great. Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway. The problem is that with the existence of moving shot, it was not as important to incorporate anti-air into your strategy as much as you need to in SC2. Leaving an element there that was already there? The very existence of moving shot KILLS the element. Furthermore, how does a change in focus NOT make the game better? Stop and think about your own subjective statements, rather than criticizing mine without acknowledging that yours are subjective as well. You only think Starcraft is what it is about today (and only believe that SC2 should be the same) because you were exposed to it first (creating an automatic bias towards it), as well as the fact that SC1 happened to be harmonious with your own personal preferences, while SC2 does not. I'm not saying the game should be ALL strategy, I'm saying it shouldn't be so heavily focused on tactics. Also, creating a situation in which player A has X strategy and Y tactic, but player B has X strategy and Y+2 Tactic. Of COURSE player B will win! I'm not saying tactics shouldn't matter at all, but that something such as player A with X strategy and Y tactic shouldn't automatically be defeated by someone with a reasonably inferior (read: not terrible, but just generally weaker) strategy and with ridiculous tactic. Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus. AGAIN: Just because YOU think something is inferior doesn't mean it IS inferior. That's what I'm saying: It's different, not inferior (different is objective, inferior is subjective). I'm absolutely fine if you think SC2 is terrible, but don't shove it down other peoples' throats by trying to objectively state that is sucks.
I didn't really want to get back into this thread, but this response just absolutely amazes me.
Your first point claims that moving shot, which improves the strength of air units, makes it....less...important to have anti air. How does this even work? If you don't incorporate anti air into your sc1 build, you are absolutely demolished by mutalisks or wraiths. Also, the previous poster was referring to the fact that sc2 has not unveiled a "new" focus, macro, because macro has been the absolute strongest, most standard strategy since iloveoov, which would make it 7 years? How does sc2 change this focus? It is simplifying the focus.
Regarding tactics versus strategy, do you realize that the oldest strategy game in the world (chess) is divided into two branches: tactics and positional play? Tactics allow the best players to absolutely demolish errors in positioning, in strategy, or in game theory. If you followed the recent Chess championship between Anand and Topalov, you would have noticed the brilliant tactical play in game 1 that allowed Topalov to smash Anand's defense for the win, something that 95% of the chess world would probably not have seen without a chess engine, or a few days to assess the position. Similarly in BW, a misplacement of a missile turret in tvz or example would allow a strong tactical player to completely annihilate the terran defenses. A mistake in "strategy" (misplaced turret) should allow a "tactical" player to capitalize. Right now, that line of play is much weaker relative to an all-in or macro strategy that it's almost nonexistent.
Referring again to the chess analogy: grandmasters have the exact same openings (strategy) as any 2000 rated player. However, they win or draw against masters almost 100% of the time. Why? Their understanding of the scenario, and the subsequent execution of their play. If every 2000 rated player is given the ability to execute with identical, or near identical ability as a grandmaster...
Tactics should have a significant part in a strategy game, or else how do you differentiate players? You can make strategy A beat strategy B beat strategy C beat strategy A. Then you're basically rehashing rocks paper scissors. Or you can give the ability for players with great control of their units to have an advantage.
|
On May 06 2010 09:24 Scapalexis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 08:28 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway. What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too. "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)" False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left. If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it. The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus" Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun? If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great. Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway. The problem is that with the existence of moving shot, it was not as important to incorporate anti-air into your strategy as much as you need to in SC2. Leaving an element there that was already there? The very existence of moving shot KILLS the element. Furthermore, how does a change in focus NOT make the game better? Stop and think about your own subjective statements, rather than criticizing mine without acknowledging that yours are subjective as well. You only think Starcraft is what it is about today (and only believe that SC2 should be the same) because you were exposed to it first (creating an automatic bias towards it), as well as the fact that SC1 happened to be harmonious with your own personal preferences, while SC2 does not. I'm not saying the game should be ALL strategy, I'm saying it shouldn't be so heavily focused on tactics. Also, creating a situation in which player A has X strategy and Y tactic, but player B has X strategy and Y+2 Tactic. Of COURSE player B will win! I'm not saying tactics shouldn't matter at all, but that something such as player A with X strategy and Y tactic shouldn't automatically be defeated by someone with a reasonably inferior (read: not terrible, but just generally weaker) strategy and with ridiculous tactic. Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus. AGAIN: Just because YOU think something is inferior doesn't mean it IS inferior. That's what I'm saying: It's different, not inferior (different is objective, inferior is subjective). I'm absolutely fine if you think SC2 is terrible, but don't shove it down other peoples' throats by trying to objectively state that is sucks. I didn't really want to get back into this thread, but this response just absolutely amazes me. Your first point claims that moving shot, which improves the strength of air units, makes it....less...important to have anti air. How does this even work? If you don't incorporate anti air into your sc1 build, you are absolutely demolished by mutalisks or wraiths. Also, the previous poster was referring to the fact that sc2 has not unveiled a "new" focus, macro, because macro has been the absolute strongest, most standard strategy since iloveoov, which would make it 7 years? How does sc2 change this focus? It is simplifying the focus. Regarding tactics versus strategy, do you realize that the oldest strategy game in the world (chess) is divided into two branches: tactics and positional play? Tactics allow the best players to absolutely demolish errors in positioning, in strategy, or in game theory. If you followed the recent Chess championship between Anand and Topalov, you would have noticed the brilliant tactical play in game 1 that allowed Topalov to smash Anand's defense for the win, something that 95% of the chess world would probably not have seen without a chess engine, or a few days to assess the position. Similarly in BW, a misplacement of a missile turret in tvz or example would allow a strong tactical player to completely annihilate the terran defenses. A mistake in "strategy" (misplaced turret) should allow a "tactical" player to capitalize. Right now, that line of play is much weaker relative to an all-in or macro strategy that it's almost nonexistent. Referring again to the chess analogy: grandmasters have the exact same openings (strategy) as any 2000 rated player. However, they win or draw against masters almost 100% of the time. Why? Their understanding of the scenario, and the subsequent execution of their play. If every 2000 rated player is given the ability to execute with identical, or near identical ability as a grandmaster... Tactics should have a significant part in a strategy game, or else how do you differentiate players? You can make strategy A beat strategy B beat strategy C beat strategy A. Then you're basically rehashing rocks paper scissors. Or you can give the ability for players with great control of their units to have an advantage.
I'm not saying that moving shot means you don't NEED anti-air; I'm saying it wasn't as important to prepare far before-hand for it, because moving shot enabled you to play "catch up." In SC2, if you don't have Anti-Air and the opponent goes Air, you're screwed. In SC1, you can rely on micro to help make up for the fact that you didn't entirely focus on AA.
As for Strategy vs. Tactics, re-read what I said. I said that Tactics should not play a dominant (or near-dominant) role, not that it shouldn't matter at all. It's not rock-paper-scissors; mechanics is important, as well. Actually being able to EXECUTE strategy is what is most important (which, I believe, is commonly referred to as macro). Execution is what separates the good from the better, and not but a bit if influence from tactic is necessary to separate the better from the best.
@KungKras: The amount of perceived strategy and tactic is different in the eyes of every spectator >.> Also, I never said my numbers were accurate; they were hyperboles because it is much clearer that way. Would you prefer if I said I didn't like RTSes having Strategy and Tactic equally placed, rather than using the example I did?
Should a Strategy game be dominantly strategy, or equal with another? The former one. Duh.
Also, I never said I had the right to decide what an RTS should be. HOWEVER, it's heavily implied that a Real-Time-Strategy game should pertain to Strategy more than anything else (well, you could argue that Real-Time is important as well, but they aren't mutually exclusive )
Oh, and what happens when somebody says they think micro ISN'T fun and entertaining? Doesn't your entire argument fall into pieces?
If SC2 should be Fun first, and an RTS second, I have no idea how the world works. That's like saying a sci-fi novel should be fun first, and sci-fi second. That's not how the world works. If something is called sci-fi, it better be sci-fi. If something is called fantasy, it better be fantasy. If something is called RTS, it better be an RTS.
Also, Blizzard has stated that E-Sports is NOT the focus of SC2 (at least, in the recent interviews I've seen)
Also, if ANYBODY can give each individual micro tactic a point value, then be able to objectively MEASURE how much micro is in each game, I will concede and give you a cookie.
AND AGAIN: Macro =/= Strategy. It doesn't matter if SC1 was 50/50 Macro/Micro, because I am talking about strategy, which expands far beyond the realm of pure macro.
Also, prove to me that SC2 has less viable builds than SC1. Show me how you can possibly know every possible viable build out there, especially considering it's only been out for a few months. Past RTS experience matters very little, if you're going to say that we as a community are more experienced than we were before, bestowing upon us the ability to quickly find every viable strategy in the game; it's a new game. By new game, I don't mean new title; I mean ENTIRELY new. New mechanics, new engine, new units, new maps, new EVERYTHING (except for names)
|
On May 06 2010 10:02 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 09:24 Scapalexis wrote:On May 06 2010 08:28 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway. What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too. "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)" False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left. If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it. The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus" Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun? If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great. Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway. The problem is that with the existence of moving shot, it was not as important to incorporate anti-air into your strategy as much as you need to in SC2. Leaving an element there that was already there? The very existence of moving shot KILLS the element. Furthermore, how does a change in focus NOT make the game better? Stop and think about your own subjective statements, rather than criticizing mine without acknowledging that yours are subjective as well. You only think Starcraft is what it is about today (and only believe that SC2 should be the same) because you were exposed to it first (creating an automatic bias towards it), as well as the fact that SC1 happened to be harmonious with your own personal preferences, while SC2 does not. I'm not saying the game should be ALL strategy, I'm saying it shouldn't be so heavily focused on tactics. Also, creating a situation in which player A has X strategy and Y tactic, but player B has X strategy and Y+2 Tactic. Of COURSE player B will win! I'm not saying tactics shouldn't matter at all, but that something such as player A with X strategy and Y tactic shouldn't automatically be defeated by someone with a reasonably inferior (read: not terrible, but just generally weaker) strategy and with ridiculous tactic. Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus. AGAIN: Just because YOU think something is inferior doesn't mean it IS inferior. That's what I'm saying: It's different, not inferior (different is objective, inferior is subjective). I'm absolutely fine if you think SC2 is terrible, but don't shove it down other peoples' throats by trying to objectively state that is sucks. I didn't really want to get back into this thread, but this response just absolutely amazes me. Your first point claims that moving shot, which improves the strength of air units, makes it....less...important to have anti air. How does this even work? If you don't incorporate anti air into your sc1 build, you are absolutely demolished by mutalisks or wraiths. Also, the previous poster was referring to the fact that sc2 has not unveiled a "new" focus, macro, because macro has been the absolute strongest, most standard strategy since iloveoov, which would make it 7 years? How does sc2 change this focus? It is simplifying the focus. Regarding tactics versus strategy, do you realize that the oldest strategy game in the world (chess) is divided into two branches: tactics and positional play? Tactics allow the best players to absolutely demolish errors in positioning, in strategy, or in game theory. If you followed the recent Chess championship between Anand and Topalov, you would have noticed the brilliant tactical play in game 1 that allowed Topalov to smash Anand's defense for the win, something that 95% of the chess world would probably not have seen without a chess engine, or a few days to assess the position. Similarly in BW, a misplacement of a missile turret in tvz or example would allow a strong tactical player to completely annihilate the terran defenses. A mistake in "strategy" (misplaced turret) should allow a "tactical" player to capitalize. Right now, that line of play is much weaker relative to an all-in or macro strategy that it's almost nonexistent. Referring again to the chess analogy: grandmasters have the exact same openings (strategy) as any 2000 rated player. However, they win or draw against masters almost 100% of the time. Why? Their understanding of the scenario, and the subsequent execution of their play. If every 2000 rated player is given the ability to execute with identical, or near identical ability as a grandmaster... Tactics should have a significant part in a strategy game, or else how do you differentiate players? You can make strategy A beat strategy B beat strategy C beat strategy A. Then you're basically rehashing rocks paper scissors. Or you can give the ability for players with great control of their units to have an advantage. I'm not saying that moving shot means you don't NEED anti-air; I'm saying it wasn't as important to prepare far before-hand for it, because moving shot enabled you to play "catch up." In SC2, if you don't have Anti-Air and the opponent goes Air, you're screwed. In SC1, you can rely on micro to help make up for the fact that you didn't entirely focus on AA. As for Strategy vs. Tactics, re-read what I said. I said that Tactics should not play a dominant (or near-dominant) role, not that it shouldn't matter at all. It's not rock-paper-scissors; mechanics is important, as well. Actually being able to EXECUTE strategy is what is most important (which, I believe, is commonly referred to as macro). Execution is what separates the good from the better, and not but a bit if influence from tactic is necessary to separate the better from the best. @KungKras: The amount of perceived strategy and tactic is different in the eyes of every spectator >.> Also, I never said my numbers were accurate; they were hyperboles because it is much clearer that way. Would you prefer if I said I didn't like RTSes having Strategy and Tactic equally placed, rather than using the example I did? Should a Strategy game be dominantly strategy, or equal with another? The former one. Duh. Also, I never said I had the right to decide what an RTS should be. HOWEVER, it's heavily implied that a Real-Time- Strategy game should pertain to Strategy more than anything else (well, you could argue that Real-Time is important as well, but they aren't mutually exclusive ) Oh, and what happens when somebody says they think micro ISN'T fun and entertaining? Doesn't your entire argument fall into pieces? If SC2 should be Fun first, and an RTS second, I have no idea how the world works. That's like saying a sci-fi novel should be fun first, and sci-fi second. That's not how the world works. If something is called sci-fi, it better be sci-fi. If something is called fantasy, it better be fantasy. If something is called RTS, it better be an RTS. Also, Blizzard has stated that E-Sports is NOT the focus of SC2 (at least, in the recent interviews I've seen) Also, if ANYBODY can give each individual micro tactic a point value, then be able to objectively MEASURE how much micro is in each game, I will concede and give you a cookie. AND AGAIN: Macro =/= Strategy. It doesn't matter if SC1 was 50/50 Macro/Micro, because I am talking about strategy, which expands far beyond the realm of pure macro. Also, prove to me that SC2 has less viable builds than SC1. Show me how you can possibly know every possible viable build out there, especially considering it's only been out for a few months. Past RTS experience matters very little, if you're going to say that we as a community are more experienced than we were before, bestowing upon us the ability to quickly find every viable strategy in the game; it's a new game. By new game, I don't mean new title; I mean ENTIRELY new. New mechanics, new engine, new units, new maps, new EVERYTHING (except for names)
This is what you're saying. "It wasn't as important to prepare far before-hand for [air], because moving shot enabled you to play 'catch up' [to air]." How does this sentence make any semblance of sense? Moving shot is a characteristic of air units. It was not present on, say, marines, which were the standard anti-air in that matchup. Nor on valkyries, or goliaths, two other possibilities. How does moving shot allow you to "catch up" when it's not present on the anti-air? Moving shot gave the ability to utilize air in such a way that they could do far more damage against lesser control. In addition, the tvz matchup and pvz matchup in broodwar relied heavily on building anti-air before the actual threat appears. One could argue that the basis of the 1 rax cc build is designed to counter 3 hatch muta, and 2 hatch muta was designed to counter 1 rax cc (with micro). The bisu build is designed to have corsair out before the spire finished, so you could adequately defend against 3 hatch muta. These strategies were heavily based on the premise of micro in this matchup, and the fact that you don't recognize any of that, and actually have extremely wrongheaded beliefs, is puzzling to say the least. You also say "In SC2, if you don't have Anti-air and your opponent goes Air, you're screwed." Do you realize this is the exact opposite mindset Blizzard had concerning stealth and detection? Their reason for pushing DT's back is so new players don't get auto-destroyed by DT rushes. How did that work out?
You also argue that execution of strategy is the most important. Strategies can, as I established in the previous paragraph, be based on micro. Three hatch muta is a good example: your execution of muta micro to delay the terran push is exactly what you need to set up a 3rd base, lurker tech, then hive tech. Reaver sair, another strategy based on micro. Fantasy build TvP. These strategies revolved on the ability to micro to set up a macro game. Execution is what separates Stork, from say, Brave. They can use the same strategy all they want, but their army control and micro separate them enormously.
|
On May 06 2010 08:58 Misrah wrote:I used to like Blizzard becasue they were not like the average game company
Here here.
Starcraft 2 atm does feel like a game where deciding the proper Tech, countering with the right units and macroing dominates gameplay. I do miss the micro in Sc1, being able to slide those Vultures around the map to avoid Zerglings from surrounding was awesome.
Someone said that Strategy is superior to Micro and Macro. Micro and Macro are means of applying any form of "Strategy." Moving-Shot is an application of Strategy by micro. You don't want your Vultures just to sit still and take melee units head on, you also don't want to be cornered in as this will give you less room to take advantage of your range. This is a form strategy as well.
I doubt the addition of Moving-Shot would turn off a lot of new players. There have been tons of more new user friendly additions ( Auto-Mine, Infinite Selection, Que-Commands) so would adding Moving-Shot be such a terrible idea?
And moving shot is fun. It really is. It doesn't even require a lot to learn either. Microing Vultures is as simple as using Patrol instead of Attack move.
And nice read Lalush, finally managed to read the whole thing .
|
On May 06 2010 10:02 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 09:24 Scapalexis wrote:On May 06 2010 08:28 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:On May 06 2010 07:50 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 06 2010 07:40 KungKras wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you? I don't think I need to say more becasue your post makes your ignorance so obvious, but I'll try to eplain anyway. What gives you the right to say what a strategy game is and should be about? Every strategy game is fucused around build orders and strategy. What makes SCBW great is all the other stuff that it has too. "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)" False, it does not create a new element. All it does is to remove one of the older elements and only leave another element that was already there left. If you have good execution in BW, the strategy that you describes matters, just listen the "how to win with an advantage" sound file if you can find it. The focus of the game has shifted, but does that make the game any better? I have already mentioned several reasons as to why the changes makes the game worse. You have said nothing else than "I personally like the change in focus" Here is the thing. Without micro, we won't see player do cool stuff with the units and we won't be able to do cool stuff ourselves. How is this "shift in focus" making the game more fun? If you want strategy games that rely on brains and build orders only, you should look at a different RTS franchise than Starcraft, because Starcraft is about strategy, but guess what, it's about other things as well, and that's what made it great. Another thing, if you're matched against a player that is the same skill as yourself, why would you worry about micro skills and APM making a difference? You would still win based on your build order and strategy, you just wouldn't be in platinum league. You and you "strategy" wouldn't suffer if micro skill was a factor. But taking micro away would ruin the game for other players and spectators. Defending the lack of micro is very egoistic on your part because at similar skill, strategy and build order and mindgames matter a lot anyway. The problem is that with the existence of moving shot, it was not as important to incorporate anti-air into your strategy as much as you need to in SC2. Leaving an element there that was already there? The very existence of moving shot KILLS the element. Furthermore, how does a change in focus NOT make the game better? Stop and think about your own subjective statements, rather than criticizing mine without acknowledging that yours are subjective as well. You only think Starcraft is what it is about today (and only believe that SC2 should be the same) because you were exposed to it first (creating an automatic bias towards it), as well as the fact that SC1 happened to be harmonious with your own personal preferences, while SC2 does not. I'm not saying the game should be ALL strategy, I'm saying it shouldn't be so heavily focused on tactics. Also, creating a situation in which player A has X strategy and Y tactic, but player B has X strategy and Y+2 Tactic. Of COURSE player B will win! I'm not saying tactics shouldn't matter at all, but that something such as player A with X strategy and Y tactic shouldn't automatically be defeated by someone with a reasonably inferior (read: not terrible, but just generally weaker) strategy and with ridiculous tactic. Strategy should outweigh Tactic in an RTS (at least, that's what the definition of RTS is for me). If you want to mess around with having a game focused heavily on tactic, either go back to SC1 or play WC3. Don't bash SC2 for being inferior when it just has a different focus. AGAIN: Just because YOU think something is inferior doesn't mean it IS inferior. That's what I'm saying: It's different, not inferior (different is objective, inferior is subjective). I'm absolutely fine if you think SC2 is terrible, but don't shove it down other peoples' throats by trying to objectively state that is sucks. I didn't really want to get back into this thread, but this response just absolutely amazes me. Your first point claims that moving shot, which improves the strength of air units, makes it....less...important to have anti air. How does this even work? If you don't incorporate anti air into your sc1 build, you are absolutely demolished by mutalisks or wraiths. Also, the previous poster was referring to the fact that sc2 has not unveiled a "new" focus, macro, because macro has been the absolute strongest, most standard strategy since iloveoov, which would make it 7 years? How does sc2 change this focus? It is simplifying the focus. Regarding tactics versus strategy, do you realize that the oldest strategy game in the world (chess) is divided into two branches: tactics and positional play? Tactics allow the best players to absolutely demolish errors in positioning, in strategy, or in game theory. If you followed the recent Chess championship between Anand and Topalov, you would have noticed the brilliant tactical play in game 1 that allowed Topalov to smash Anand's defense for the win, something that 95% of the chess world would probably not have seen without a chess engine, or a few days to assess the position. Similarly in BW, a misplacement of a missile turret in tvz or example would allow a strong tactical player to completely annihilate the terran defenses. A mistake in "strategy" (misplaced turret) should allow a "tactical" player to capitalize. Right now, that line of play is much weaker relative to an all-in or macro strategy that it's almost nonexistent. Referring again to the chess analogy: grandmasters have the exact same openings (strategy) as any 2000 rated player. However, they win or draw against masters almost 100% of the time. Why? Their understanding of the scenario, and the subsequent execution of their play. If every 2000 rated player is given the ability to execute with identical, or near identical ability as a grandmaster... Tactics should have a significant part in a strategy game, or else how do you differentiate players? You can make strategy A beat strategy B beat strategy C beat strategy A. Then you're basically rehashing rocks paper scissors. Or you can give the ability for players with great control of their units to have an advantage. Also, Blizzard has stated that E-Sports is NOT the focus of SC2 (at least, in the recent interviews I've seen)
What they say in interviews and how they actually feel and act is completely different considering how they're still trying to stiffarm Kespa in the esports arena. Blizzard cares very much about the esports scene, if only to make a greater profit.
|
On May 06 2010 09:03 DarkSmurf wrote:
The idea of "skillcap" being bound to the amount of micro required by a game is retarded. Does chess have micro? So go ahead and tell me you can get "skillcaped" in chess. It's ridiculous.
the thing is that chess has a lot more deepness strategy and tactical wise so it doesen't need micro to stay interesting.
starcraft (1 and 2) is pretty simple when it comes down to pure strategy, so it needs something else to make it interesting for the long run.
in soccer, not the strategy is what makes the game so interesting, it's the individual skill which divides the good from the bad.
a good strategy in soccer (like bunker in for 80 minutes and then go for a goal when the favored opponent is tired) can work out, but it's unlikely to work out which is good, because like this the better team will win most of the games.
in scarcraft, which indeed is a strategy game and relys on it, the possible strategys that can work are way too limited to limit the game on pure strategy.
blizzard even said they don't want starcraft2 to be complex, they want it as simple as possible.
whith that decision u need deepness in game mechanics that can be trained to make the game a long time experience.
|
Man, people really do care a lot about their "rock, paper, scissors", don't they?
Indignation at a game developer's choices are always amusing. Hey, if you dig on BW, keep playing it. That said, the original post was absolutely fascinating. Totally beyond my ken, but hey, you guys dig it. At least you're not, ya know, engaging with the real world. Then you might have to ask "am I leading a meaningful life?" and then you'd all commit suicide.
I kid.
|
On May 06 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 08:58 Misrah wrote:i love watching new people to the community argue imma get me a bag of pop corn To be frank- the fact that sc2 does not cater to hardcore sc players is a good thing. blizz wants to make money and its the only thing that ever mattered to them. i find it funny that people actually think blizz cares about your ideas or opinion. they have already done the market research. they already know who they are making the game for before the presented beta. its pointless for the sc vet to try and argue for a better game. ANY long time sc player will concede sc1 superiority to sc2. and to all the new players- congrats! i am glad you like sc2. you are the type of person blizz is trying to cater too. they have you by your balls with the alure of a pretty game and flase promises so enjoy because we both know that in a year you will be off and foaming at the mouth with the next new release. in short- blizz is a business. business do one thing - make money. unless you are a cash cow for blizz- they dont care You make it sound like Blizzard thinks just like the average game company. I used to like Blizzard becasue they were not like the average game company
Well Blizzard is absolutely awesome for their STORY in singleplayer. Do you really think that Starcraft would have been that successful if there wasnt this awesome story with the epic movies inbetween? There are a lot of other RTS games out there but none have such good stories and execution in singleplayer as Starcraft and Warcraft.
For Starcraft 2 their lead designer already said that single player will be different from Multiplayer, just because they can do a lot more nifty stuff there (adding old units like medics and firebats). So it isnt entirely unreasonable that Blizzard is catering two crowds with the same game for maximum benefit. They arent stupid and catering to PvP-junkies in WoW has brought them a lot of customer who would never have played a MMORPG, so why shouldnt it work for Starcraft 2?
On May 06 2010 08:17 KungKras wrote:
You really don't have a clue as to what starcraft is all about do you?
... and you do? Exactly why is your OPINION more valid than his? Do you own Blizzard to be able to dictate how it is "supposed to be"?
On May 06 2010 15:37 Light_Bahamut wrote:
Man, people really do care a lot about their "rock, paper, scissors", don't they?
Personally I think its a bad concept for a game, but thats just me and everyone else is free to feel as they do.
|
On May 06 2010 13:08 zupf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 09:03 DarkSmurf wrote:
The idea of "skillcap" being bound to the amount of micro required by a game is retarded. Does chess have micro? So go ahead and tell me you can get "skillcaped" in chess. It's ridiculous. the thing is that chess has a lot more deepness strategy and tactical wise so it doesen't need micro to stay interesting. starcraft (1 and 2) is pretty simple when it comes down to pure strategy, so it needs something else to make it interesting for the long run. in soccer, not the strategy is what makes the game so interesting, it's the individual skill which divides the good from the bad. a good strategy in soccer (like bunker in for 80 minutes and then go for a goal when the favored opponent is tired) can work out, but it's unlikely to work out which is good, because like this the better team will win most of the games. in scarcraft, which indeed is a strategy game and relys on it, the possible strategys that can work are way too limited to limit the game on pure strategy. blizzard even said they don't want starcraft2 to be complex, they want it as simple as possible. whith that decision u need deepness in game mechanics that can be trained to make the game a long time experience.
Exactly!
Now the means in which Blizzard adds more skill cap to sc2 is still up for debate. The engine definitely allows for anything. Whether or not they add moving shot or something else, more micro would be exciting and separate players not only by strategic decisions, but physical capabilities as well. SC1 is awesome because no matter how fast you are, you can always go faster. No matter how well you can make strategic decisions, you are always refining and evolving said strategy.
I dislike the negative bias towards blizzard in this thread, not because I am a fan boy, but because it is immature and not constructive. Turning sc2 into sc1 is not what needs to happen to make sc2 a great game. Comparing sc2 to sc1 is not fair either. They are different games.
Everyone can agree that the "better" player should win. Better in a mental sense and physical one as well. Someone that executes both strategy and tactics on a superior level. Basically the faster, smarter player should win. This seems to be the case a lot of the time. Balancing issues are still a factor here because this is beta.
So the goal here is for blizzard to make a game in which the faster, smarter player wins. Mind games, meta-game, multitasking, micro, build orders, and execution are all key factors. Expanding on these elements will allow sc2 to be competitive. How blizzard does this is really up to them. We can suggest things all day long and bicker and argue, but none of us own a multi billion gaming corporation. Blizzard has a vast amount of resources and information in which to make these decisions upon. Don't try and change the game because you feel it doesn't play out the way you want, but rather accept that there are certain rules and you must push these to the limits to get the outcome you want.
|
I don't really get why people keep saying that SC2 shouldn't be like SC1 when talking about stuff like moving-shot, highground-mechanics, hard-counter-system etc.
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1?
Let's say it's true what most people are saying about SC:BW, which is that it was more or less luck that it turned out to be as great as it is, which is at least partially true, because crucial parts of the game nowadays haven't even been discovered for years, like MutaMicro, Patrol-Button-Micro, Hold-Position-Lurkers etc.
Do you really want to depend on Blizzard getting that lucky once more or do you want to depend on years and years of experience devoted SC-Fans have about what makes SC:BW so great to actually have a good chance of making SC2 a great game?
I get it that certain people are defensive about certain changes in the current state of SC2; maybe they aren't familiar with SC and don't want SC-players to have a bigger edge in the game, maybe they haven't really figured out the game yet and are still hyped and pumped and don't see what all the fuss is about (play 1000 games on a high level and we'll talk again) or maybe they're just fanboy's, who knows? But regarding the above mentioned Issues, it's crucial to listen to the people that are passionate and experienced enough to be willing and able to make constructive criticism, even if you might be opposed as an initial reaction.
And again, I'd like to say sth about ppl saying that less skill needed can be substituted by playing better in other departments: Even if players will never be able to play SC2 perfectly, maybe even in this Betabuild of the Game, it's crucial to not think like it's okay to lower the highest possible skilllevel, because in eSports, this will just lead to boring games after a certain amount of time when people have figured out great deals of the game, came up with perfect builds etc. Also, you can't really compare the micro that was possible with SC:BW with anything SC2 has to offer, because SC2 offers you skills and careful Unitcontrol in Battles, which can only take so long and can only be used so many times, but Muta-Harrassment, Reaper-Drop's, Vulture-Micro, Wraith-Micro etc. where things you could've spent your entire focus on the entire game! Even in the absolute lategame, if you only have one Vulture, you can spend your entire focus just on controlling this one Unit perfectly and this stuff is what makes SC:BW great, the tension between how long will I want to keep up harrassing with Mutas and when do I want to switch Focus on Macro or other stuff? There is nothing like that in SC2 atm and there is pretty much nothing like that in any other RTS:
The possibility to spend as much time as you want on certain (groups) of Unit's at any given moment of the game with the amount of focus spent on those Unit's proportionally increasing their usefulness.
And that's why we need the moving-shot in SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
