|
On May 06 2010 16:52 kickinhead wrote:
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1?
The thing is that Blizzard wants to create a new game and therefore tries to introduce new abilities into the game. It is an attempt to get new people into the game and establish eSports in more areas than Korea.
While changing the general mechanics and abilities of units may be up to your taste or not, the map editor seems pretty powerful and I have no doubt that we will see an "SC1 mod" sometime. When we do you have the choice between playing SC1 as an SC2 mod with updated graphics OR playing SC2 as it is presented by Blizzard. Having a choice isnt bad IMO, although the current straightjacket of the Battlenet 2.0 for mods needs fixing first.
|
Nice post, definitely agree.
|
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 must know that this is a complete non sense.
In starcraft, everything was important. Strategy also. If you do zealot when your oppenant is going mutalisk, you'll loose even if you rocks at micro. Just because zealot isn't a good counter to mutalisk (obviously).
The fact is (and this is why sc:bw was so amazing) that everything is important. You have to produce unit and gather resources, you have to choose the right technology to counter the oppenant's strategy, and you also have all the micro elemnts you'll find in sc2.
In addition, you have units that become really powerfull with really intensive micro. However, if you fail at other points (macro, strategy, usual micro) no matter how good you are at moving shot/staking muta or whatever you'll loose.
You really have to understand that.
|
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.
I actually DO think that making a game suitable for both hardcore gamer and casual isn't a contradiction.
The casual gamer needs basics thing to be done automatically when it's possible. SC2 is goos at this because it introduce mecanism like MBS and automine.
This mecanism are not a problem for hardcore gamer. To make the game suitable for hardcore gamer, you need to be able to improve almost without limits some elements of the game. However, if all the basic functionnality are easy to perform, a casual gamer will enjoy the game in single player mode and multiplayer with other people who have a comparable level/skill.
These points are trully differents and not incompatible.
From a business point of view, I do think that making a game for casual gamers is a good thing to sell. But the pro scene is also very important as an advertisement for the game. As long as both goal are can be done in the game, this is the best choice for a marketing point of view.
|
On May 06 2010 18:44 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 16:52 kickinhead wrote:
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1? The thing is that Blizzard wants to create a new game and therefore tries to introduce new abilities into the game. It is an attempt to get new people into the game and establish eSports in more areas than Korea. While changing the general mechanics and abilities of units may be up to your taste or not, the map editor seems pretty powerful and I have no doubt that we will see an "SC1 mod" sometime. When we do you have the choice between playing SC1 as an SC2 mod with updated graphics OR playing SC2 as it is presented by Blizzard. Having a choice isnt bad IMO, although the current straightjacket of the Battlenet 2.0 for mods needs fixing first.
IMO this is also a complete non sens.
Why keeping thing that work well in sc:bw prevent from introducing new stuffs ? No reason for that.
Many mechanism introduced by blizzard are interesting in SC2. We just regret that mecanisms that make starcraft so unique that even 12 years after, it's still very enjoyed are not even considered into SC2.
I don't want to play to SC1 with beter graphic. A want to pley to an incredibly amazing RTS that take what's work from sc:bw and introduce even more !
|
On May 06 2010 18:44 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 16:52 kickinhead wrote:
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1? The thing is that Blizzard wants to create a new game and therefore tries to introduce new abilities into the game. It is an attempt to get new people into the game and establish eSports in more areas than Korea.
How has introducing new stuff anything to do with making Unit-control less responsive?
moving-attack isn't an ability, it is basic unit-control and simply a step down from SC1 - there's no arguing in that. You may argue that you want the game to be less responsive and therefore heavily limiting the way the game can be played, but that's the wrong attitude if you want SC2 to be a competetive game that's gonna be played a long time in eSports...
It's like you say: "We wan't Super Mario 2 to be different from Super Mario 1, so let's make it impossible for Mario to jump when running"... It's just stupid. It's not like saying; "We don't want the fireflower anymore as an Item and replace it with something else" - it's simply a step back in the control-scheme!
That stuff has nothing to do with implementing new abilities to replace old ones and making macroing easier with MBS and Automining or making it easier to surround with better AI - it's nothing else but making something worse than in SC1 and worse than it should be to allow SC2 to be played on a high level.
|
A few things
-I love the article, well thought out with just the right amount of snark
-It's obvious blizzard did a lot to make the game more fun/easy for casual gamers. Perhaps they should have made unit differences by game selection, and thus when at Game Difficulty: Korean, all the stuff is turned off, and super-micro is in effect. As someone who loved and was very good at broodwar, I actually enjoy playing SC2 more than I did BW. But, as someone who loved watching pros do things that were just flat out amazing, I feel like there is a bit of that missing. Mostly because I feel like anything I see high level players do now, I can do. Granted they could do it slightly more, or slightly better, but I could still do it. This is no different than any sport, when I see someone do something that I feel like I can do, I am left less entertained.
-That being said, so much of the balance of brood-war came from map making. I'm wondering if people can use the map editor to change the behavior of the attack, can they disable or enable all these things if they want? If Blizzard falls behind in balance at the pro-level, or the pro-level isn't entertaining enough, can a gaming coalition of Kespa and whatever other e-sports companies get together and program their own base collection of balance/difficulty that makes the game exciting at a pro level. Then you'll have casual players playing the casual SC2, and those more interested in playing all-out intense match-ups, playing on the e-sports maps that have different balance and play-style.
|
lol i like the Dustin and David talk. get the lore guys on it 
|
On May 06 2010 22:16 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 18:44 Rabiator wrote:On May 06 2010 16:52 kickinhead wrote:
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1? The thing is that Blizzard wants to create a new game and therefore tries to introduce new abilities into the game. It is an attempt to get new people into the game and establish eSports in more areas than Korea. How has introducing new stuff anything to do with making Unit-control less responsive?
Taking out the moving shot might be a necessary thing ... or would you enjoy a Colossus with 9 range who is doing it? If the colossus was able move-attack-instaretreat, the skill to use it would absolutely demolish the opposition since its one unit with a long range area attack ... and (pretty fast) cliffwalking. Thats one example where moving shot would be a bad idea.
For the Phoenix I imagine it has a lot to do with "style" of the units movement. It is supposed to look graceful and have flowing movement. That doesnt mix with turning instantly and after shooting. Also there is the "banking animation", which is basically an application of the 3D engine (= new stuff). Starcraft 1 is 2D, so it didnt have that kind of graphics issues to bother with and much rougher movements.
Lets look at the funky new Terran unit: the Thor. Its big and its slow (moving and turning), so would it be "fair" to have Mutalisks be able to stack up and do the moving shot like in BW? Not really. To make up for it you would have to buff the Thor and make it IMBA against players who cant do the move-shot. Not a good idea IMO.
I think those three examples show the "other side" of moving shot for three new units. Just try to think about new units and what they would be able to do with it. I guess we all agree that Hellions are good enough already and that they definetely dont need moving shot. So if the new guys should not have it the old guys probably shouldnt have it either.
|
Thors do splash damage to Mutalisks so moving shot wouldn't do a thing. Colossus has nothing like a moving shot and is not even the point of discussion
What is needed is not responsive controls for EVERY SINGLE UNIT. What people want is more responsive controls for the units that are more designed around mobility, like the Phoenix or the Hellion.
|
On May 07 2010 03:19 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 22:16 kickinhead wrote:On May 06 2010 18:44 Rabiator wrote:On May 06 2010 16:52 kickinhead wrote:
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1? The thing is that Blizzard wants to create a new game and therefore tries to introduce new abilities into the game. It is an attempt to get new people into the game and establish eSports in more areas than Korea. How has introducing new stuff anything to do with making Unit-control less responsive? Taking out the moving shot might be a necessary thing ... or would you enjoy a Colossus with 9 range who is doing it? If the colossus was able move-attack-instaretreat, the skill to use it would absolutely demolish the opposition since its one unit with a long range area attack ... and (pretty fast) cliffwalking. Thats one example where moving shot would be a bad idea.
Then you balance it by reducing the range to 7 or 8. And not ALL units need a moving shot. They aren't asking for every unit to have one. Hydralisks, Goons, Tanks, Marines, Goliaths, etc. didn't have moving shot. I believe every single air unit did though. As well as units like vultures (and uh... can't think off the top of my head).
Honestly I only think air needs moving shot really...
|
Every time I make a Hellion I rage. Thing is so hard to micro.
|
Brilliant idea! Let's cripple the terran air arsenal more than it already is, and continue to let mutalisks rape the skies. Sounds real pro to me.
|
On May 06 2010 18:44 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 16:52 kickinhead wrote:
SC1 is absolutely great in those aspects, so why should SC2 not benefit from what has worked extremely well for SC1? The thing is that Blizzard wants to create a new game and therefore tries to introduce new abilities into the game. It is an attempt to get new people into the game and establish eSports in more areas than Korea. While changing the general mechanics and abilities of units may be up to your taste or not, the map editor seems pretty powerful and I have no doubt that we will see an "SC1 mod" sometime. When we do you have the choice between playing SC1 as an SC2 mod with updated graphics OR playing SC2 as it is presented by Blizzard. Having a choice isnt bad IMO, although the current straightjacket of the Battlenet 2.0 for mods needs fixing first.
When you are trying to create a competitive sport, segregation is bad. If an SC1 mod is radically different from SC2, it will just create a small niche of players who install the mod, and it won't be good for spectators because the casual SC player (and plenty of esports fans follow SC casually without being hardcore into the game) won't even recognize the game that the pros are playing. One of Brood War's greatest traits is that there's no pro-mod, no tourney rules (in 1v1) and such. Its basically the game, right out of the box, and it makes it recognizable to any fan of Starcraft. So few games have been able to do that.
|
Remember that any addition of moving shot would be a trickle-down balance, and pretty much every static defense, air unit, and GTA unit would have to be rebalanced to compensate that.
That kind of balancing would probably take at least a year.
|
What I find crazy about this whole debate is that we have a non-professional player arguing that he knows better than Blizzard, a company worth billions of dollars who have employees who are smarter and more knowledgeable about Starcraft:BW than he is.
Blizzard consults pro-gamers about game design and even has pro-gamers on it's payroll for this sort of discussion. Do you really think that they didn't think about the micro in SC2 and unit control? Really? Really?
Trust me, you don't become as big as Blizzard without some smarts. The idea that they haven't thought about this micro issue already is a joke. After all, they made Brood-war, they have the source code, they have the huge dev team, pro team contacts, etc.
Just stop complaining please. If you don't like SC2, no one's forcing you to play it. Plenty of people still play BW.
|
On May 07 2010 03:41 RoosterSamurai wrote:
Brilliant idea! Let's cripple the terran air arsenal more than it already is, and continue to let mutalisks rape the skies. Sounds real pro to me.
Something tells me that you just read the up to the 3rd paragraph and got mad. Obviously with an upgraded micro system there's gonna be more balance issues to take care of ~_~. Also for those who say this is a new game blahblahblah... Think about it. When there's a sequal to a game its understable that diff units are gone, new spells are in, etcetc but why would core aspects such as what lalush pts out be taken away?? Anyone remember when they took away shit from super smash bros melee when making brawl?? Most people hated it and some even went back to playing melee because the brawl system was horrible.
|
On May 07 2010 03:55 norwegianwood wrote:
What I find crazy about this whole debate is that we have a non-professional player arguing that he knows better than Blizzard, a company worth billions of dollars who have employees who are smarter and more knowledgeable about Starcraft:BW than he is.
Blizzard consults pro-gamers about game design and even has pro-gamers on it's payroll for this sort of discussion. Do you really think that they didn't think about the micro in SC2 and unit control? Really? Really?
Trust me, you don't become as big as Blizzard without some smarts. The idea that they haven't thought about this micro issue already is a joke. After all, they made Brood-war, they have the source code, they have the huge dev team, pro team contacts, etc.
Just stop complaining please. If you don't like SC2, no one's forcing you to play it. Plenty of people still play BW.
Okay, I think I'll give up on Starcraft 2 because there's always Brood War, right? This line of thinking makes no sense at all. It's like preferring Starcraft 1 over SCBW. It's a nonsensical solution to the problem of unsatisfactory gameplay in Starcraft 2.
Blizzard has a payroll of non-Starcraft Brood War players. That is, unless they constantly reference Korean Proleague to make sure they are making the game correctly, they are not getting the correct sort of information.
Blizzard is worth a lot of money. So were the companies behind many RTS games. So why can none of their games even TOUCH the level of complexity and pace of Starcraft?
Blizzard honestly has a very wrong approach to Starcraft 2. They are not trying to recreate the overall experience of Starcraft Brood War because if they were, they would have referenced every single Korean Proleague match they could get and they would have tried to recreate the "feel" based on what they could see. But they didn't.
Instead, they are attempting to make Starcraft 2 a new sort of World of Warcraft, what with all of the community features and such. But this is also bleeding over into the gameplay. They were too focused on "cool tactics", "special abilities", and "small unit micro" instead of focusing on the overall importance of positional play, large army control, and strategy. This is reflected in unit design.
This is a direct result of not understanding the core of Starcraft 1 strategy and gameplay.
|
Blizzard consults pro-gamers about game design and even has pro-gamers on it's payroll for this sort of discussion. Do you really think that they didn't think about the micro in SC2 and unit control? Really? Really?
Some pro gamer notice that fact way before the beta was released. So really ? really ? really ? really ? (the more really, the righter you are, right ?)
And anyway, when you get invloved in the devellopement of something, you loose objectivity. This is a well known phenomena called cognitive dissonance. This is why EVERY company is making a beta phase before realasing they're product. You should now that is you had some knowledge in software devellopement and related topics.
I'm also not a progamer myself. However, I worked many time on organizing tournament for many different game, and some at pro level. This give me a quite good expérience of what make a sucessful game and what doesn't, with a quite large expérience and frequantation of very skilled players from many games.
I have seen so much game growing up really fast, then get played 2 or 3 years and that everybody forget after that. They are also some game like BW and CS that resist to the time, because of great mecanisms.
However, I shouldn't have to argue about myself. Trying to fight an argument by attaquing the peoples who make the argument reveal very poor argumentation skills. Please argue about what is said, not about who said it.
Trust me, you don't become as big as Blizzard without some smarts. The idea that they haven't thought about this micro issue already is a joke. After all, they made Brood-war, they have the source code, they have the huge dev team, pro team contacts, etc.
Actually, as some suggest, SC pre BW was horribly broken. And blizzard fixed it with BW. Also, many micro stuff was discovered way after BW, so we can clearly consider that some successfull stuff from bw was here just by LUCK.
The fact is, we are not at the BW time. We have now knowledge of what exists, what can be done and what cannot. Removing something that was really sucssful in BW from SC2 is just stupid.
|
Guys. You've won.
Seems like atleast Phoenix is able to do moving shot.
edit: In patch 11 I mean.
I think Blizz' is going to the right direction. Atleast in terms of gameplay
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
