|
dude, the removal of the moving shot is exactly what i like better about sc2 compared to sc1. It means that macro is significantly more important than before, defending is easier, and the gameplay is significantly more enjoyable for anyone except maybe sc1 pros.
You have to think also about blizzards potential market. Most people who buy this game would get so frustrated by little tiny annoying micro that they will give it a low rating and reduce sales. Blizzard games are targeted towards casual gamers first. They want as many people playing as possible and if it is too complicated of a game (like the moving shot) then casual gamers won't buy it.
So blizzard can either sell an sc2 game targeted to 5000 loyal bw fans and koreans, or they can target it towards 10 million casual gamers already familiar with blizzard games.
At the same time, I don't think not having moving shot makes the game any worse, just as smart casting targeting, and worker AI don't take away. What it does mean is that to be a good player will require only 50-100 apm and not 150-200 apm.
if sc1 was the twitch game, then sc2 is more of a subtle strategy game like chess. If the game still had those twitch mechanics people would be crying how the game was too similar to sc1.
Less micro doesn't mean less complex, less micro means more control over the entire game instead of single units and more risk involved in making certain decisions like sniping.
|
or basically what someone said
sc2 is about
"positional play, large army control, and strategy."
instead of twitch micro
|
On May 20 2010 13:57 darmousseh wrote:
dude, the removal of the moving shot is exactly what i like better about sc2 compared to sc1. It means that macro is significantly more important than before, defending is easier, and the gameplay is significantly more enjoyable for anyone except maybe sc1 pros.
You have to think also about blizzards potential market. Most people who buy this game would get so frustrated by little tiny annoying micro that they will give it a low rating and reduce sales. Blizzard games are targeted towards casual gamers first. They want as many people playing as possible and if it is too complicated of a game (like the moving shot) then casual gamers won't buy it.
So blizzard can either sell an sc2 game targeted to 5000 loyal bw fans and koreans, or they can target it towards 10 million casual gamers already familiar with blizzard games.
At the same time, I don't think not having moving shot makes the game any worse, just as smart casting targeting, and worker AI don't take away. What it does mean is that to be a good player will require only 50-100 apm and not 150-200 apm.
if sc1 was the twitch game, then sc2 is more of a subtle strategy game like chess. If the game still had those twitch mechanics people would be crying how the game was too similar to sc1.
Less micro doesn't mean less complex, less micro means more control over the entire game instead of single units and more risk involved in making certain decisions like sniping.
I will most likely be suicide posting here, but it must be done. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I hate you. I really, really, hate you.
GAH
|
Hmmm...
I'm not sure programming exploits was really intended to constitute skill. Obviously in SC1 that is the case, but I hardly imaging they would intentionally retain bugs in an updated game. I honestly think less micro = better game. I suppose it separates the elites from the casual players, but shouldn't the elites be separated by strategy rather than raw click-speed?
As a side note:
It's kind of like terran walling. That was and still is exploiting a bug (or weakness) of the game engine (shooting through buildings). Every time I think about it I cry. Just try to imagine what a walled base with bunkers behind barracks looks like in 'real life'. "What, no mr scv, I want the defence structure, behind the one we're trying to protect..."
|
I'm sorry guys, but we can't deny that pro-level BW micro is what made the game so entertaining. SC2 is just getting started, but moving shot is an important element to what made BW so exciting.
|
On May 20 2010 14:03 Kodan wrote:
I will most likely be suicide posting here, but it must be done. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I hate you. I really, really, hate you.
GAH
lol, i'm sorry that you feel that way. One of my best friends is a hardcore sc1 guy and he is upset with the major change in mechanics as well.
Here's a graph for me to illustrate what will happen because of the high importance of macro compared to micro.
![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/2u40hs3.jpg)
My point is that the difference between pros and non-pros will be much more subtle but not nearly as subtle as it is in chess, but definitely more subtle than sc1. This means more pros and a higher quality of games. In the end, even in chess, there are a few 3-4 who are just a notch above the rest.
|
This graph isn't scientific, but is just an illustration to basically describe what people are already saying. In sc1 a pro would lose to an amateur maybe 5% of the time, in sc2 they will lose more like 20% of the time. In chess, its closer to 30-35% of the time.
|
Actually think SC2 uses more micro. I've already seen countless pros lose particular matches because they just didn't micro properly and they admitted it.
You really need to position units well, and make sure you use all abilities to it's fullest. So unless you were a Terran in SC1, I don't see how you can complain about micro, because MOST units in SC1 were just 1a2a .
|
I understand. I will agree to disagree that it is good that the micro is this way. But I agree that if it doesn't change that is how sc2 will turn out.
Since you handled my "flameness" like a mature internet person, I will say I'm sorry for hating you!
|
I totally agree with this post. Hopefuly Blizzard takes the time to read it
|
What makes a great competitive game is when a player comes back from what looks to be a certain loss to a fantastic win. Micro makes that possible, yet in sc2, if you have the number and unit advantage, as long as you don't do something extremely retarded you cannot really lose. That makes a game boring IMO.
|
what will happen is that determining the "losing move" is much more difficult and perfect play becomes significantly more important in all aspects. In sc1 you can say, oh look, he microed that unit back and forth 20 times and eventually sniped that gas and that won the game, these were obvious just by the reactions of commentators. In sc2, losing a game might come down to building a stalker when you should have built a sentry which is a lot harder to figure out.
|
On May 20 2010 14:44 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 14:03 Kodan wrote:
I will most likely be suicide posting here, but it must be done. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I hate you. I really, really, hate you.
GAH lol, i'm sorry that you feel that way. One of my best friends is a hardcore sc1 guy and he is upset with the major change in mechanics as well. Here's a graph for me to illustrate what will happen because of the high importance of macro compared to micro. My point is that the difference between pros and non-pros will be much more subtle but not nearly as subtle as it is in chess, but definitely more subtle than sc1. This means more pros and a higher quality of games. In the end, even in chess, there are a few 3-4 who are just a notch above the rest.
I'm having a hard time connecting your demonstration of micro/macro with chess.
|
On May 20 2010 14:11 Goobahfish wrote:
Hmmm...
I'm not sure programming exploits was really intended to constitute skill. Obviously in SC1 that is the case, but I hardly imaging they would intentionally retain bugs in an updated game. I honestly think less micro = better game. I suppose it separates the elites from the casual players, but shouldn't the elites be separated by strategy rather than raw click-speed?
As a side note:
It's kind of like terran walling. That was and still is exploiting a bug (or weakness) of the game engine (shooting through buildings). Every time I think about it I cry. Just try to imagine what a walled base with bunkers behind barracks looks like in 'real life'. "What, no mr scv, I want the defence structure, behind the one we're trying to protect..."
I guarantee you the pros at sc1 would still destroy amateurs based on strategy alone. Micro allows the Jaedongs/NaDas/Julys/Flashes to emerge because they're just so damn good. And it makes for far more entertaining matches. The fact that you think sc is only about raw click-speed shows how little you really know.
|
Also i think thelittleone and idra are perfect examples of the upcoming sc2 player pro. Idra focusing more on coming up with on the fly strategies and idra with intense macro play.
|
On May 20 2010 14:59 kyophan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 14:44 darmousseh wrote:On May 20 2010 14:03 Kodan wrote:
I will most likely be suicide posting here, but it must be done. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I hate you. I really, really, hate you.
GAH lol, i'm sorry that you feel that way. One of my best friends is a hardcore sc1 guy and he is upset with the major change in mechanics as well. Here's a graph for me to illustrate what will happen because of the high importance of macro compared to micro. My point is that the difference between pros and non-pros will be much more subtle but not nearly as subtle as it is in chess, but definitely more subtle than sc1. This means more pros and a higher quality of games. In the end, even in chess, there are a few 3-4 who are just a notch above the rest. I'm having a hard time connecting your demonstration of micro/macro with chess.
Assume that there were ELO ratings in sc1. In sc1 the likelihood of a pro beating a semi-pro was like 95%, in sc2 its more like 75% and in chess its more like 65% or in otherwords the difference in skills is obvious in sc1, and extremely subtle in chess. sc2 is somewhere in between.
|
SC2 has less micro than BW making it an overall "easier" game but by no means does it lack micro. Keep in mind we still have 2 expansions to go which means more units, which probably means more micro. SC2 at its current state is similar to Starcraft without BW.
|
On May 20 2010 15:04 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2010 14:59 kyophan wrote:On May 20 2010 14:44 darmousseh wrote:On May 20 2010 14:03 Kodan wrote:
I will most likely be suicide posting here, but it must be done. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and I hate you. I really, really, hate you.
GAH lol, i'm sorry that you feel that way. One of my best friends is a hardcore sc1 guy and he is upset with the major change in mechanics as well. Here's a graph for me to illustrate what will happen because of the high importance of macro compared to micro. My point is that the difference between pros and non-pros will be much more subtle but not nearly as subtle as it is in chess, but definitely more subtle than sc1. This means more pros and a higher quality of games. In the end, even in chess, there are a few 3-4 who are just a notch above the rest. I'm having a hard time connecting your demonstration of micro/macro with chess. Assume that there were ELO ratings in sc1. In sc1 the likelihood of a pro beating a semi-pro was like 95%, in sc2 its more like 75% and in chess its more like 65% or in otherwords the difference in skills is obvious in sc1, and extremely subtle in chess. sc2 is somewhere in between.
Still what does that have to do with the game lol......
|
On May 20 2010 14:11 Goobahfish wrote:
Hmmm...
I'm not sure programming exploits was really intended to constitute skill. Obviously in SC1 that is the case, but I hardly imaging they would intentionally retain bugs in an updated game. I honestly think less micro = better game. I suppose it separates the elites from the casual players, but shouldn't the elites be separated by strategy rather than raw click-speed?
As a side note:
It's kind of like terran walling. That was and still is exploiting a bug (or weakness) of the game engine (shooting through buildings). Every time I think about it I cry. Just try to imagine what a walled base with bunkers behind barracks looks like in 'real life'. "What, no mr scv, I want the defence structure, behind the one we're trying to protect..."
Raw click-speed? ...
Umm, have you tried understanding what's going on? What's really going on is a process with which larger armies do not always win. For example, properly used corsairs, although they cannot out right kill a pack of mutas because they have to stay over cannons, they keep the base alive. Vultures can take pokes around and keep the Protoss back. These are not raw click-speed actions, these are actions for advantages.
Being able to live with a smaller army is what makes a game strategy. How much can I get away with economy wise and then go to army macro mode? SC2 does not have that high ground advantage and that micro ability that makes small armies actually useable. What happens? Games of you just build an army, he just builds an army, wow... awesome. There is a little bit of micro to keep the larger army back, but for the most part you see a ton of 1a in SC2.
So where you went wrong: you didn't understand how micro effects the strategy. At all. Micro may not be strategy, but it makes strategy other than "build army" possible. Your strategy-only game must be great with only the "build army" button...
|
micro is not strategy, micro is the ability to tactically use the units in the most optimal way possible. now micro is more about positioning, move out slighty injured units, blinking, force fields, surrounding, timing the attack and runs, moving the correct units to adjust for spells, focus firing a unit, etc. Just because there are less micro micros doesn't mean micro is gone, its just there are less to focus on and learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
