|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 27 2010 10:08 StaticKinetics wrote:
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but as a new player this whole article read as: "My specific skillset isn't as useful anymore and blizzard needs to change the game to my liking." As much as I appreciate the write up's quality, I can't find anything relevant here. Comparing two different games just doesn't make sense.
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?
LaLush is one of the best zergs on europe.....
|
United States3130 Posts
Dancing units? I thought /dance was already in the game.
Agreed with all your points here. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.
My favorite quote, Putting someone like Dustin Browder in charge of development for SC2 though, is almost like letting one of the many overly-enthuasiastic-and-overly-optimistic TL forum resident D- noobs have the last say about what is good and bad for a multi million dollar game. .
|
Totally agree, I loved watching a small force engaging a large one knowing if the player micros it correctly, dancing back and forth, he'll come up on top. It's very exciting watching without knowing who's going to come out ahead based only on skill and control. SC2 just doesn't feel this way, everything looks so clumsy. Even when an inferior zealot+sentry force kills a large roach army I'd be amazed at the force fields, but the roaches look so clumsy and slow rather than the zealot+sentry looking agile and amazing.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Great article, read through it twice.
I could be playing Beta on a shared account right now, but last night I wanted to play BW...
And I did.
BW, with all its "flaws" makes for a much better game right now, in my opinion.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 27 2010 10:10 Bane_ wrote:This pretty much crushes the whole premise of the thread no? :o I like would think so. However, moving shot is so useless in SC2 it isn't worth the extra commands. I suppose you could dance phoenix away from attackers, but really, there's really not that many applications.
|
When are people going to stop saying, give it some time, its the beta! and realize that they should have been able to learn what is good and what is bad from SC and apply that to SCII?? I mean srsly moving shot doesnt take a lot of effort to realize it was a good thing in SC
|
There are two main points regarding the original post which I don't agree with at all.
Your first section essentially boils down to the fact that the Phoenix isn't as good as the Corsair vs Mutalisks, and you attempt to blame the engine, when really it comes down to the fact that Corsairs are just better.
You also briefly touch upon how Zergling's aren't as powerful as they were in Starcraft 1. Two words - Dark Swarm. How powerful would Zerglings be without that in the Starcraft 1 late game?
The point that I agree with you most is how one cannot really engage the larger army with a smaller army and expect to escape, but that has less to do with shot micro, and more with just how the units in Starcraft 2 are different, and tend to do more damage - being able to dance your army around wouldn't stop your retreating units from getting their retreat force fielded, or slowed by Mauraders, or just overrun by a faster Zerg army utilizing the creep speed bonus. So your argument about the game engine doesn't really apply there either.
In short, you are blaming the lack of micro in Starcraft 2 on the engine, when it has more to do with the fact that Starcraft 2 has different units, which work differently, and have better snaring methods than their Starcraft 1 predecessors.
Oh, and you could have shortened your post to at least 3/4th of its original length, especially if you just removed the pointless ranting.
|
On April 27 2010 10:11 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 10:08 StaticKinetics wrote:
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but as a new player this whole article read as: "My specific skillset isn't as useful anymore and blizzard needs to change the game to my liking." As much as I appreciate the write up's quality, I can't find anything relevant here. Comparing two different games just doesn't make sense.
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? LaLush is one of the best zergs on europe.....
And? He's whining about how HIS skills aren't as effective in this game. I don't see any good reasoning why Blizzard should change the game. If macro is more important than micro in SC2 then so be it.
Why is micro skill > macro skill?
|
On April 27 2010 10:10 Bane_ wrote:This pretty much crushes the whole premise of the thread no? :o
Not really. It doesn't sound like it works to any relevant extent.
On April 27 2010 10:16 StaticKinetics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 10:11 Plexa wrote:On April 27 2010 10:08 StaticKinetics wrote:
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but as a new player this whole article read as: "My specific skillset isn't as useful anymore and blizzard needs to change the game to my liking." As much as I appreciate the write up's quality, I can't find anything relevant here. Comparing two different games just doesn't make sense.
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? LaLush is one of the best zergs on europe..... And? He's whining about how HIS skills aren't as effective in this game. I don't see any good reasoning why Blizzard should change the game. If macro is more important than micro in SC2 then so be it. Why is micro skill > macro skill?
It isn't. We need both, because having both provides a fun and exciting game. Are you seriously asking why a game where you only execute build orders and then click the attack button is boring? I don't think you are, and that displays that you need elements of both for a good game, which the OP is arguing is lacking on the micro side.
|
Dudes. Yes. I exaggerated greatly trying to get some points across. Don't take every word I wrote literally.
By no means did I mean that SC2 has no micro or no macro. And I even point out that Blizzard's designers were probably really lucky with Starcraft and Brood War.
If I were Blizzard though, I would try to recreate and emulate some of the mistakes and bugs that made Starcraft so good. There is no reason why they shouldn't try to implement moving shot. Would it do any harm?
On April 27 2010 09:58 Plexa wrote:LaLush, moving shot does exist in SC2 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118641You 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.
I have tried plexa. Can you please show this off in a VOD? From what I gather it only looks like it has a moving shot because it's gliding. You can even glide backwards. While it is possible to fire without coming to a stop or decelerating (although it's very difficult and often requires you to be moving in a straight line), it is not possible to change your direction or issue any move command while the aircraft is gliding.
It pretty much means you have to anticipate the optimal gliding pattern before engaging, and there's no chance to change your mind.
I have tried it based on your description, but I can't get it to work in a "non defective" manner (meaning it contained all of the flaws in the paragraphs above). I think you'll have to show us how you do it.
|
On April 27 2010 10:16 StaticKinetics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 10:11 Plexa wrote:On April 27 2010 10:08 StaticKinetics wrote:
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but as a new player this whole article read as: "My specific skillset isn't as useful anymore and blizzard needs to change the game to my liking." As much as I appreciate the write up's quality, I can't find anything relevant here. Comparing two different games just doesn't make sense.
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? LaLush is one of the best zergs on europe..... And? He's whining about how HIS skills aren't as effective in this game. I don't see any good reasoning why Blizzard should change the game. If macro is more important than micro in SC2 then so be it. Why is micro skill > macro skill?
He is not whining about his skill... it is about the feeling ( and also the balance ) when you play the game. It is like a Quake game without circle jumps.
|
Haven't there already been multiple games completely disproving the "no micro"
Reaper games, Nony's amazing Phoenix usage, Thor drop and pops, Hellion harass and flanks, etc?
You spent a whole lot of words to basically say SC2 and BW have different movement mechanics. I don't think you proved anything about how it "killed micro" just because you can't micro Mutas the same way anymore.
|
On April 27 2010 10:19 PanzerDragoon wrote:
Haven't there already been multiple games completely disproving the "no micro"
Reaper games, Nony's amazing Phoenix usage, Thor drop and pops, Hellion harass and flanks, etc?
You spent a whole lot of words to basically say SC2 and BW have different movement mechanics. I don't think you proved anything about how it "killed micro" just because you can't micro Mutas the same way anymore.
Compare the amount of micro needed to thor drop with the amount of micro needed to reaver drop.
|
I am not really sure if its all about the moving shot, but i sure know what you mean by saying micro doesnt "feel" right. The general unit movement ai doesnt give me nearly as much control as I would like. I think latency and things like autosurround have something to do with it as well.
|
Good Article. Looking forward to seeing your one on macro.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 27 2010 10:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 10:10 Bane_ wrote:On April 27 2010 09:58 Plexa wrote:LaLush, moving shot does exist in SC2 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118641You 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 Not really. It doesn't sound like it works to any relevant extent.
Oh no it works, it just isn't practical. Without scourges in the game there is zero reason for wanting to moving shot. I mean you could get the odd shot off against Mutalisks if they are attacking you and you are hiding behind cannons - but chances are you've already lost by then. The game, by design, has made moving shot not useful in any way. Who has the bigger army, or more specifically, who has the best army composition is far more important than any little micro tricks at the moment. I say at the moment since once we reach an equilibrium and we can standardize the builds and find useful micro tricks there.
|
This feeling caused by the lack of micro in the game your describing is no stranger to me either.
I find myself playing 1 game of sc2 each day and thats it, theres no wanting more, no wanting to get better.
|
I completely agree with everything on this article. I think you should hold some back some of the rage you feel for Browder though, because he is the one creating the game and he might not fix anything because of spite. But this was the best article I have read about SC2 yet. Everytime I play SC2, I always feel drawn back to BW and start playing BW because of the way it FEELS. In SC2, it just feels like the two players get big armies, the one that wins the battle, wins the game. In SC1 terran could have a large amount of mnm and the zerg could just defend his third with lurker eggs or lurkers at the ridge. I miss being able to mutalisk control. I miss hydralisk control. I miss dragoon control. I miss vulture control. I really agree with what you said about the pre-Browder era and the post-Browder era. I feel that SC1 tried to go for a game in which regular people could play, but couldn't master unless they practiced very hard and had natural skill at it. SC2 went for casual players that could learn the game and be good at it easily. Unless Blizzard incorporates a new engine system, SC2 will never become the e-sport that its predecessor was. I could play SC1 for hours and hours and watch VODs for hours and not be bored. After 2 games in SC2, I get bored. You or someone should definitely put a poll about this. (My assumptions on SC2 might not completely be correct as I have only been playing different levels of AI on SC2 as I don't have a beta key yet.) Maybe my feelings will change if I play a person not a computer, but I seriously doubt it.
|
On April 27 2010 10:00 Kironide wrote:
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.
It's the basis for it. This article isn't so different from the dozens of others that have been written about the supposed lack of micro, or the supposed lack of macro because of MBS, or whatever the flavor of whine is that particular week.
The thought process behind these articles is obvious. It isn't
Find a flaw -> make a logical argument -> Blame Blizzard
It's
Blame Blizzard -> Look for flaws -> Make a logical argument so your article isn't just a hate post
It's the same thing over and over and over and over again. Whether it's MBS or micro or maps or replays or chat channels or any one of the thousand other innane things, people are just looking for excuses to shit on Blizzard, which is really disapointing considering this is the website dedicated to one of Blizzard's creations. I'm surprised I'm the only one who's sick of this shit at this point.
On April 27 2010 10:00 Kironide wrote:
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.
I respectfully disagree with your observation. Pointing out ad hominem and emotionally laden phrases is not in itself ad hominem nor nessessarily emotional laden.
On April 27 2010 10:00 Kironide wrote:
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.
Doing so.
On April 27 2010 10:00 Kironide wrote:
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.
Since you're a new poster, I'll forgive you for not recognizing this style of article, then. If you had been reading this forum more closely and for a longer period of time, you would understand where I'm coming from.
On April 27 2010 10:00 Kironide wrote:
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.
And you're welcome to feel any way you wish to feel, in the same way the OP is free to feel that Blizzard is ruining his life because vultures don't dance anymore. But if you can boil down the entirity of my posts in this thread into a one-sentence statement, it would be that Feelings don't equate truth. If you need a hard evidence example, just take a look at this thread. The OP feels something is wrong because he doesn't feel that there is a moving shot mechanic in the game. Plexa shows us that there is, in fact, moving shot in the game. Regardless of how strongly the OP feels his beliefs to be true, feelings don't equate truth. To make an article to heavily laden with feelings is to write an article that risks being bereft of truth.
On April 27 2010 10:00 Kironide wrote:
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.
Your English is fine, I could understand you perfectly.
|
This is probably the most insightful article iv read about Sc2. He hits exactly what what meant to be hit. He found the needle in the haystack and hes wagging it in front of the guy who bet 10 bucks that he wouldnt find it.
Blizzard, please look at this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
