EPTI think a great example of this subject deserving discussion is actually ZvZ muta v. less muta. Think of having spore crawlers and mutas - A bigger force of mutalisks can't be properly defended against with anything less than a superior army, you can't dance around your spore crawlers effectively I don't think. Anyone else thinking the same about this zvz situation feeling broken?
Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
syri.fef
United States16 Posts
I think a great example of this subject deserving discussion is actually ZvZ muta v. less muta. Think of having spore crawlers and mutas - A bigger force of mutalisks can't be properly defended against with anything less than a superior army, you can't dance around your spore crawlers effectively I don't think. Anyone else thinking the same about this zvz situation feeling broken? | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:52 Qikz wrote: Wait, people are comparing the fact the Hellion has no moving shot to the vulture? If the hellion had a moving shot it would be so unbelievably overpowered it would be unreal and that's coming from a terran player. The point is that if the more mobile units could use their mobility, their stats could be lowered. As the OP explained, Banshee is an excellent example where everyone benefits if they get the moving shot. | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
What made my day is the chat between DavidKim and Bowder at the end ^^ Brilliant. edit: stealing a quote for my sig. by the way | ||
|
stockton
United States128 Posts
the game is still only in beta stages. you said the last balance update for BW was in 2001. thats 3 years AFTER release. we aren't even AT release yet. The game deserves some time before it is to be bashed and treated like a red headed step child imo. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
If you change the dynamics of the game now, everything becomes instantly imbalanced. Yes you can just "shift the stats" but finding the right stats would take them far longer than they have. There's plenty micro to be had in SC2 but people have yet to find it yet, the beta has only been out two months. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118641 You CAN dance with Phoenix, it's just way more difficult than it ever was. You CAN do it with vikings and banshees as well. The only unit I had trouble getting the moving shot was, ironically, the mutalisk. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:54 Senx wrote: Shouldn't make fun/flame Browder/Blizzard like that either imo.. affected the whole quality of the article and just made it all seem like a rant post rather than a thoughtful serious post :/ Should always assume Blizzard is reading these forums and being mannered and serious goes a long way. Even if they weren't reading these forums, and I'm still not entirely convinced that they do, there's no reason to be a complete dick to the people that are providing you with the closest thing we've had to Broodwar since Broodwar itself. That's just ungrateful, self-serving, and spoiled. | ||
|
pikaaarrr :3
United States593 Posts
| ||
|
richard_keats
United States54 Posts
Although I realize that the game is only a beta thus far, I am disappointed with the level of changes to the game that Blizzard has been willing to make. They have listened to user input, but there are still many issues that remain unaddressed. On April 27 2010 09:41 ComradeDover wrote: Like so many articles written on similar subjects, the emotion is at the core of the argument. If this wasn't an opportunity to write how much Blizzard sux and Bowder sux and SC2 sux, I doubt this article would have been written. Instead of presenting any semblance of reasonable, logical criticism to the points presented in the article, you merely focused on the emotion-filled conclusion, claiming that the negativity towards Blizzard was the crux of the argument. Many agree that the emotion presented was excessive, but by no means was it the core point and the presence of emotion does not invalidate the points presented. In fact, your own posts are no less full of ad hominem attacks and emotionally laden phrases with little content; if you do not intend to contribute to the thread in a meaningful manner, I would respectfully ask that you simply do not participate. If you do indeed feel that the OP was in any way flawed, I, along with many others, invite you to present your counter-points and in doing so spark a meaningful discussion instead of ignoring the well thought-out ideas presented herein. Although I am a new poster, I feel that it's simply disrespectful to make far-fetched claims about the OP with no relation to the content of the argument ("the emotion is at the core of the argument") and ignore the work that the thread creator undoubtedly put into his write-up. I don't mean to chastise you--I just don't feel that your contributions in this thread as well as other threads offering reasonable criticism of Starcraft II have at all actually contributed to the ongoing discussion and I simply wanted to point out that you could participate in and enrich the conversation or debate if you do feel so strongly about the issue. I would also like to apologize for my poor English. Being very fatigued and not a native English speaker, I am certain I made many errors in my writing. | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
 nice article though. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:33 Liquid`NonY wrote: Yeah I'm saying he went waaaaaaay too far talking about design philosophy, game engines, how and why SC:BW was such a good game, etc. It was a bunch of bullshit that will make it easy for a Blizzard employee reading it get a bad feeling. A straight article about how the mechanics of moving shot micro worked in SC:BW along with a reason why it was so great for everyone (healthy for competition, fun to use, fun to watch) and a quick proof that it doesn't really exist in SC2 would have been great. Exactly. I appreciate the difficulty and skill it takes to pull off a lot of the cute micro tricks from SC1, but those tricks are not what made SC1 great. In fact, I'm kinda confused as to what LaLush's ultimate point is because he spends way too much time speaking in vagueries. In other words, why does SC2 need these cute tricks? Does he feel that there are not enough opportunities to micro units in battle? Does he believe that these tricks are needed to make SC2 balanced? Does he feel that the "best" players will not be able to adequate beat "inferior" players in SC2 without having these cute tricks to add another degree of difficulty to the game? Honestly, any and all of these concerns are ridiculous. Lastly, diminuitively comparing SC2's designer to a D- noob does nothing but undermine whatever point LaLush was trying to make. It's this kind of crap, along with his unnecessarily elitist tone that pollutes his article, that wrecks communities. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised to see it because I've seen it come from players in just about every sequel to a major, popular game that I've played. | ||
|
Unstable87
Australia226 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:05 Excalibur_Z wrote: This post is just too long to respond to in full. It's also completely off-base. You make the false assumption that bugs from BW such as true moving shots were intended. It's arguable whether that should be added back in because it does widen the skill gap which is always good. Mutas are already excellent indirect containment and harassment units, they would be even more powerful if their BW incarnations carried over. For all you know, this was a conscious decision by Blizzard. You make the false assumption that the Blizzard design philosophy has changed pre-SC versus SC2 with no supporting evidence. Rob Pardo, the VP of game design and key figure in the development of BW, has always been consistent in his design approach. Succinctly, it's "make everything overpowered" along with "purity of purpose" and it's short and simple. You make the false assumption that the SC engine was "great" (with regard to design intent versus SC2) when in fact it has ludicrous amounts of bugs. Ask anyone on this website and they'll agree, a large part of the appeal of BW was the exploitation of bugs in the engine. Mineral-click, dropship dodging, moving shots, mineral-hopping, the list goes on and on. Some of these were carried over to SC2 because they are intended to be used in SC2, and some were removed. We don't know whether that was intended. I'll respond to the rest of the post with generalities that still apply: So much of your post is hating SC2 because it's not SC, and that mentality just has to disappear. I think you're giving Browder too much heat as well, it's pretty clear he's got the correct intentions and he's not doing the balancing alone. Lastly, this is a beta and we can expect some pretty drastic changes as we progress. 100% Agree here, This is not SC1, while there are a few tweaks that we would all like to be included in SC2, it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be there. People keep saying there is no micro in SC2, but from my experience in playing there is so much depth that hasn't been discovered yet its insane, a lot of the micro that people talk about wasn't even discovered until years after BW had been finally patched, and yet you want SC2 to be as good if not better in BETA????? this is why they are having a beta to get all of this done before release. Give them time to get it right it takes a lot longer to implement changes that people think. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:59 pikaaarrr :3 wrote: Really great writeup. I was always wondering why the hellion felt so slow, even though it moved so fast. That was in particular one of my bigger qualms, as well as vikings being slow. Clearly, the moving shot should really be implemented. It may move fast and fire slow, but by god if you have upgrades it rips through lings and hydras if you place them correctly. Vikings are slow purely for the fact they have 9 range, and they need that range to counter collosus. If they could move and shoot, it'd be another case of really horrible balance issues as the Collosus would have to change otherwise T wouldn't have an effective counter without suiciding the counter over stalkers and the vikings would be too powerful against any other air unit if they could move shoot fast with the range they have. | ||
|
Kurt_Russell
Canada147 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:52 Qikz wrote: Wait, people are comparing the fact the Hellion has no moving shot to the vulture? If the hellion had a moving shot it would be so unbelievably overpowered it would be unreal and that's coming from a terran player. I agree. All you really need to know is how far you have to be from the target units to let it have the time to fire and kite it. It may seem tedious at first, but you'll end up getting it well eventually. | ||
|
syri.fef
United States16 Posts
On April 27 2010 08:52 bendez wrote: I completely disagree. I welcome the new mechanics, and after playing 500+ games and watching tournaments, I can say that sc2 has plenty of micro. read again please, the point of the post is not that the game doesn't have micro - it's that it's missing a REALLY GREAT particular micro mechanic. And I'm not exactly impressed with most of the mechanics SC2 does have although no one (intelligent) is denying that there are plenty of them. | ||
|
z]Benny
Romania253 Posts
On April 27 2010 08:32 LaLuSh wrote: How come we all settled for less, when what we should have been doing – if anything – was asking for at least as much as we had before? No chat rooms, no ability to switch in between servers, no LAN support, no whisper functionality, no DND, unlimited unit selection, rally point to minerals, MBS, no moving shot; the list goes on and on. One compromise after the other. I used to think that we shouldn't "compromise" and that we shouldn't "settle" but I think that, in the end, enter fountain of cynism, it isn't a matter of compromise or settle because we have no say in this game at all. This isn't an actual relationship, in which we demand they provide as I used to think, like Blizzard actually listening to why it's so horrendeously retarded to not have chat rooms, switch between servers. But really they just say "We're going to look into that" exactly as you wrote in that dialogue at the end of the article. I think the community's relationship with Blizzard is more along the lines of fans yelling at the Rolling Stones "WRITE A SONG ABOUT CARSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!". | ||
|
OmgIRok
Taiwan2699 Posts
In Conclusion The solution is pretty obvious. Shorten the attack animations and make units dance again. T_T seriously? all in all good read, the anecdote gave me a chuckle- i look forward to your macro article | ||
|
StaticKinetics
United States23 Posts
I especially don't like your demeaning attitude towards new players. As much as it hurts, new casual players are going to dictate the way the game is developed from Blizzard's perspective. I think you have classic veteran syndrome that most gaming communities suffer from. The scene is changing and you don't like it. There's just no reason to hate on Blizzard for making a game with different mechanics because they don't "feel right". And I think your definition of skill is extremely narrow. If the game requires better macro strategy, then why not focus on that instead of doing some micro tricks to win the game? Maybe you're really not that good at/don't like the type of game SC2 is? | ||
|
wanderer
United States641 Posts
| ||
|
Bane_
United Kingdom494 Posts
On April 27 2010 09:58 Plexa wrote: LaLush, moving shot does exist in SC2 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118641 You CAN dance with Phoenix, it's just way more difficult than it ever was. You CAN do it with vikings and banshees as well. The only unit I had trouble getting the moving shot was, ironically, the mutalisk. This pretty much crushes the whole premise of the thread no? :o | ||
| ||
