On May 11 2010 18:12 keV. wrote: I wish all you GunZ players would give up trying to convince anyone here that your horrible game was worth playing. It wasn't. You all should have been playing CS, no excuses.
Being good at GunZ is like being good at TF2, no one cares. It is a collection of casual shooter players who like to pub and nothing more.
Oh that was mean... But it felt good.
Except TF2 has a fairly thriving competitive scene so that was a terrible comparison. Stop accidentally complementing GunZ idiot.
On May 11 2010 18:31 kickinhead wrote: So true, there are so many examples where "abusable bugs" were what made a game great:
- SCBW: Mutastacking - Do I need to say more?
- Super Smash Brothers Melee: Dash-Dancing, Dash-cancelling, chain-throws, short-hop-dash-cancelling, dashgrabbing etc. All stuff that wasn't in the game intentionally but made it such a great and demanding game.
- Tekken: wavedashing and stuff related to that.
- WC3: Possibility to switch Items with cooldowns to other heroes to use them again right away. zeppelin-bug where you could staff the zeppelin and instantly pick up the hero himself to staff it back with the zeppelin. "AI-Bugs" that could be abused with fast creeping with Trees etc., Also, killing own Units to deny getting XP etc - who knows what was actually planned of all that stuff?
- Diablo2: Possilibility to get rushed through the game - I highly doubt that was intentionally, but it allowed for stuff like low-level-Duels with chars that completed the game and got all the additional skillpoints n stuff, but are only like lvl 10 or 15 etc.
That's all stuff I kinda miss in SC2 atm and with the Engine being so incredibly awesome, I don't really know how much of that stuff is gonna be discovered, but I hope we'll find stuff that's comparable to Mutamicro in SCBW, whit what I mean: Demanding but highly rewarding Tricks you can pull off!
All very good examples. Not surprised when I saw you were from Switzerland. I think our average american friends on TL are younger than the average european member, and perhaps they don't have enough experience to compare games from yesteryear with SC2.
The main issue, the point of the OP, was that the gameplay mechanics that allowed Starcraft to be broadcasted over national television in Korea, were unintentionally put into the game by Blizzard. New mechanics have been intentionally put into SC2, and most progamers can (and have) attest to the fact that it's not going to reach Starcraft's potential. That doesn't mean SC2 is a bad game, just like Gears of War isn't a bad game.
You're just playing SC2 exactly how the game designers imagined you'd be playing SC2, and game designers fail at implementing new gameplay mechanics that raises the skill ceiling.
On May 11 2010 18:52 skipgamer wrote: I'm confused, people say they want bugs? Well go out and find them, play with the units, do things that no one would ever really consider doing... You probably can't even, they will just happen one day and people will go "woah, what just happened there?!?!" and then they will try reproducing them...
The OP is a little confusing on this yes. People don't necessarily want bugs. They just want a harder game where you can do more. As it is SC2 is not as hard as SC1, even with the macro mechanics they added. Micro is a lot less prevalent and the macro itself is easy enough such that, at least for me as a newbie, I'm a lot better with macro in SC2 than in SC1.
Bugs just sometimes happen to allow for this.
However, counting on bugs in SC2 is ridiculous. If Blizzard doesn't understand why a particular bug might be liked by the community, they will patch it and "fix" it. Also, assuming that a suitable bug will exist is quite silly. Look at what happened between Super Smash Melee and Brawl. Brawl reduced a bunch of the engine errors and now you got a game which is about as mechanical as a rock tied to a stick.
As a result, hoping that SC2 will have magical bugs that actually fix the game is completely silly. At the very least Blizzard needs to be more on board with making the game more challenging than it is now.
If Blizzard intentionally created mechanics to be exploited (whose to say they haven't btw), then advertised them and said "here, try this", that would be a lot lot worse than what they are doing now, ie making a solid game.
Inability to deny something is a foolish reason to hope for it.
The game is still young, there is so much yet to be discovered, considering the amount of tourny's that are being played, and the popularity of the beta, I have no doubt, absolutely none that Blizzard have what it takes to make a great game.
Yeah, sure. But SC1 was greater than great. SC1 and 2 are similar enough that there isn't as much to discover in SC2. And sure, SC2 will be successful, even competitively successful. But it could be so much more than simply a successful game. It could be the best bloody sequel to the best bloody game ever made.
At the moment a casual player can pick it up, spend a few days learning and end up somewhere mid silver to gold... Do you think anybody would do that if they had to spend weeks mastering a micro trick?
The barrier to entry was incredibly high for Starcraft... Blizzard needed to lower that, and they have for Starcraft 2... Whether it raises or not during its lifespan is yet to be seen, but at the moment, its great the amount of new players that are being drawn into the game, watching tournaments, trying to learn and get better, and it only means good things for gaming as a whole.
(i am one of these people by the way, and if I had to learn skills that were relevant to sc1 to be even midly competitive in sc2... Then I might as well go and play sc1.)
Making the game easy only makes the game boring in the long run. I guess what you're saying is that you wouldn't play SC2 if it had the skill ceiling of SC1. That's a ridiculous position. You and I probably will not ever reach the skill ceilings of either game. Honestly that's a good thing.
I first got into the SC1 scene, I got into it because I could comprehend how extremely awesome it was that these players were building these armies and microing them at the same time. Every coordinated movement seemed magical and full of win.
When I watch SC2 now I just don't get the same feeling at all. Part of it might be the game's young age, yes... but again I think it's unreasonable to hope beyond hope that some bug will fix things or that Blizzard will "get it" suddenly all by themselves.
As a result, hoping that SC2 will have magical bugs that actually fix the game is completely silly. At the very least Blizzard needs to be more on board with making the game more challenging than it is now.
You're missing the point. We're not saying that Dustin Browder should make the game better and more competative than Starcraft - we're saying he's not fit to do so. A tiny minority of the competative games on the market today can be attested to game designers purposely implementing features to encourage hardcore competition. These features were unintentional in the prequal, then carried over with slight mutations to the sequal. The less these designers touch the core coding of the competative game, the better the game turns out.
The POINT is that game designers like Dustin Browder have proven themselves unable to create new micro/macro mechanics that raise the skill ceiling, again, and again, and again.
Examples of macro/micro mechanics:
- SCBW: Mutastacking - Do I need to say more?
- Super Smash Brothers Melee: Dash-Dancing, Dash-cancelling, chain-throws, short-hop-dash-cancelling, dashgrabbing etc. All stuff that wasn't in the game intentionally but made it such a great and demanding game.
- Tekken: wavedashing and stuff related to that.
- WC3: Possibility to switch Items with cooldowns to other heroes to use them again right away. zeppelin-bug where you could staff the zeppelin and instantly pick up the hero himself to staff it back with the zeppelin. "AI-Bugs" that could be abused with fast creeping with Trees etc., Also, killing own Units to deny getting XP etc - who knows what was actually planned of all that stuff?
- Diablo2: Possilibility to get rushed through the game - I highly doubt that was intentionally, but it allowed for stuff like low-level-Duels with chars that completed the game and got all the additional skillpoints n stuff, but are only like lvl 10 or 15 etc.
SC:BW: Lifting barracks to give Siege Tanks vision, reavers harassment with shuttles, patrol micro, dragoon hold position micro, none of the unit duels in Starcraft turned out how the game designers envisioned it. If they had, it would never have been a competative game!
Why? Because:
Game designers like Dustin Browder have proven themselves unable to create new micro/macro mechanics that raise the skill ceiling, again, and again, and again.
My own point is that without the support of the developer SC2 will never improve mechanically. It's just the way it is because only the developer can make changes.
Your point seems to be that developers improving the game is impossible barring the adoption of accidental features that were discovered in the older game.
These points are not even necessarily contradictory.
The place where you should have quoted me would be:
People don't necessarily want bugs. They just want a harder game where you can do more.
That is indeed a bit of a misunderstanding on my part but in no way does it invalidate the rest of my post. Unless you get Dustin Browder and the rest of the devs on board, SC2 will not be improved mechanically and you will be playing mods for the rest of the game's life.
On May 09 2010 22:54 craaaaack wrote: Nice read, I fully agree.
YES SO RIGHT!!!
Blizzard dont get it, that more spells/spellcasting isnt the "micro" we want and need. we need things like patrol/hold micro to make the units more effective.
There are a hell of a lot of people who claim to speak for the "we" in the starcraft 2 community.
im sorry i was talking for maybe 90% of former Starcraft 1 users that were able to reach C+ or better and not some players from other RTS games (HELLO C&C). the thing is that sc2 doesnt allow perfect controll. i mean you could use a single vulture and kill million of speedlings if the opponent just a attacked and you controlled your vulture with patrol micro. the only way to stop this was to micro better or build a ranged unit yourself. in sc2 a simple a move with speedlings will be enough if you have enough of them, because they are fater and will autosurround, so that you cant hit and run. IMO it should need micro to stop a microed unit from the opponent.
i think when people figure out how to FE as fast and safe as possible, the game will become a huge ranged ball vs ranged ball timing attack fest, with the loser of that first fight GGing.
i think when people figure out how to FE as fast and safe as possible, the game will become a huge ranged ball vs ranged ball timing attack fest, with the loser of that first fight GGing.
Remember when vultures and tanks faced off against zealots and dragoons? One side was static, the other had to break through a wall. It was technically challenging, different every time, visually pleasing, and had the potential to go either way depending on unit control.
In any given situation, you could lose all your dragoons without doing any damage, or kill 4 tanks without losing a single unit. Unit duels are too similar in SC2, because the pathing and coding of each unit is based on some "advanced micromolecular physics simulation" that makes every unit behave the same. This is a problem with the game engine, and one of the things that the developers failed to predict. This is why SC2 "feels" inferior, it's the basic coding of the game that allows less control over units.
On May 11 2010 02:20 Pieguy314 wrote: Alot of the time the dagger was really ignored in the metagame cause it was considered an inferior weapon by both the sword users and dagger users. However, me and a group of tight friends formed D-style clans such as Keuk, 1/4Katana, Sicaria, and such. I had a great time in those clans using dagger rather than the boring sword. I don't know why, maybe we were masochists, but we enjoyed being at a disadvantage compared to k stylers. to give an example:
excuse the somewhat mediocre music.
God this game looks so sick. And I loved the music. I really wish I would have known about this title when it was in its hayday. It looks like all the micro skill of Starcraft in an FPS. It's like Halo but with massive amounts of skill involved.
On May 11 2010 22:11 phyvo wrote: Making the game easy only makes the game boring in the long run. I guess what you're saying is that you wouldn't play SC2 if it had the skill ceiling of SC1. That's a ridiculous position. You and I probably will not ever reach the skill ceilings of either game. Honestly that's a good thing.
I first got into the SC1 scene, I got into it because I could comprehend how extremely awesome it was that these players were building these armies and microing them at the same time. Every coordinated movement seemed magical and full of win.
When I watch SC2 now I just don't get the same feeling at all. Part of it might be the game's young age, yes... but again I think it's unreasonable to hope beyond hope that some bug will fix things or that Blizzard will "get it" suddenly all by themselves.
Making the game easy doesn't only make it boring in the long run.
It makes the game more accessible to new players... When I say new players I don't mean new to SC2... I mean new to Starcraft as a whole. If it is going to have Any chance of becoming a successful e-sport in the west it needs to become a household name, and whether it is liked by the competitive community or not this means the average joe needs to understand at least somewhat how to be successful (and muta micro simply isn't something the average joe would understand).
And I am saying I wouldn't play SC2 if it had the skill ceiling of SC1. I'm not ashamed of it, and I don't see why it is a ridiculous argument. There is a point where a game requires too much time investment that non hardcore competitive gamers turn off. They don't want to invest that much time...
I think you're vastly under-estimating Blizzards knowledge of why SC was successful... I just believe they are deliberately taking SC2 down another path... It might not be as good as starcraft to the hardcore starcraft players... But I am damn certain the way they are going it will be more successful.
On May 11 2010 18:12 keV. wrote: I wish all you GunZ players would give up trying to convince anyone here that your horrible game was worth playing. It wasn't. You all should have been playing CS, no excuses.
Being good at GunZ is like being good at TF2, no one cares. It is a collection of casual shooter players who like to pub and nothing more.
Oh that was mean... But it felt good.
CS and GunZ are very very very very different. I used to play both - IMO GunZ stayed fun longer than CS though they both eventually got boring (Starcraft never does though ;D)
Gunz takes skill.. Starcraft does not (for the sake of this point) Starcraft is a strategy game. Starcraft condones "smarts" and "out-thinking ur opponent" not "skills and out-maneuver". Its like people that are good at chess, they are not going to be good at playing soccer. And conversely, you don't need to be smart in gunz but instead dexterity driven.
I am not saying skill does not exist in starcraft, it does. (think micro)
but how much of it plays in the game is far less compared to FPS and especially games like GunZ.
Most people that do well in starcraft are either people that don't have a life and spend 10 hours a day practicing build (think: Idra) or people that are just creative, smart, and quick learners (think:whitera/thelittleone)
On May 12 2010 07:56 virgozero wrote: Gunz takes skill.. Starcraft does not (for the sake of this point) Starcraft is a strategy game. Starcraft condones "smarts" and "out-thinking ur opponent" not "skills and out-maneuver". Its like people that are good at chess, they are not going to be good at playing soccer. And conversely, you don't need to be smart in gunz but instead dexterity driven.
I am not saying skill does not exist in starcraft, it does. (think micro)
but how much of it plays in the game is far less compared to FPS and especially games like GunZ.
Most people that do well in starcraft are either people that don't have a life and spend 10 hours a day practicing build (think: Idra) or people that are just creative, smart, and quick learners (think:whitera/thelittleone)
There are so many stupid things in this post.
If you think that White-Ra doesn't mass game you are really ignorant. Even if he only got recognition late, he has been around forever and his Gameitoss account on ICCUP always had a sick amount of games each seasons. http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/Gameitoss.html
1000 games during season 11 for example ....
Having dedication and skills and being a mass gamer aren't incompatible.
On May 12 2010 07:56 virgozero wrote: Gunz takes skill.. Starcraft does not (for the sake of this point) Starcraft is a strategy game. Starcraft condones "smarts" and "out-thinking ur opponent" not "skills and out-maneuver". Its like people that are good at chess, they are not going to be good at playing soccer. And conversely, you don't need to be smart in gunz but instead dexterity driven.
I am not saying skill does not exist in starcraft, it does. (think micro)
but how much of it plays in the game is far less compared to FPS and especially games like GunZ.
Most people that do well in starcraft are either people that don't have a life and spend 10 hours a day practicing build (think: Idra) or people that are just creative, smart, and quick learners (think:whitera/thelittleone)
There are so many stupid things in this post.
If you think that White-Ra doesn't mass game you are really ignorant. Even if he only got recognition late, he has been around forever and his Gameitoss account on ICCUP always had a sick amount of games each seasons. http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/Gameitoss.html
1000 games during season 11 for example ....
Having dedication and skills and being a mass gamer aren't incompatible.
I was wrong about whitera I am sorry. I just listen on HD's channel that whitera is in his 30s so I assumed he had a family or some heavier obligation and thus less time to play.
I stand corrected but I believe my point is there.
The thing about these glitches, is that they are unpredictable. We need something solid to build on, not just flimsy hopes that SC2 will have interesting glitches. We just don't know that yet.
What we get from that is that if a glitch is present, in some cases, it's better to keep it. The glitch itself is not important; it's the effect. The game needs components that scale with the skill of the player - to give the feeling of progress.
It takes time to master a game, it took Starcraft years and an expansion to become a worthwhile e-sport. This game is in beta, fancy tricks with the game engine are going to happen, this is absolutely a fact. There are certain things that blizzard can do to improve the game-play, but to my knowledge no one has come close to mastering this game - not by a long shot. You talk about difficulty making a game great, I don't see where that is lacking in Starcraft 2, I do see the void of anyone capable of reaching a high level of play in Starcraft 2. Time will help fix this, that and guided and planned feedback to blizzard.
I find it also amusing that people are predicting that Starcraft 2 will not reach the height of Broodwar, when in actuality in terms of popularity it seems to have done so - in beta no less (In Europe and North America). A poll on this very site asking what people prefer to watch had 60%+ in favor of SC2. I can't predict the future but I ask yourself what a poll of similar dialogue a year from now would yield. I would find it hard to believe if Broodwar would even get 20% of the votes.
There are still things to tweak with this game, that is certain, but I firmly believe that once the players get this game down extremely well the idea that this game is boring to watch, or that there's something wrong with the mechanics will fade away - gradually.
On May 11 2010 18:12 keV. wrote: I wish all you GunZ players would give up trying to convince anyone here that your horrible game was worth playing. It wasn't. You all should have been playing CS, no excuses.
Being good at GunZ is like being good at TF2, no one cares. It is a collection of casual shooter players who like to pub and nothing more.
Oh that was mean... But it felt good.
Except TF2 has a fairly thriving competitive scene so that was a terrible comparison. Stop accidentally complementing GunZ idiot.
Fairly thriving huh? That makes no sense. Use a thesaurus and try for some middle ground.
TF2 has no competitive scene. It is about as competitive as L4D or HL2 death match.
On May 12 2010 08:06 dan_dark wrote: i play gunz, i like gunz, i cant do halfstep/butterfly/k-style but i use e-style (accurate rapid fire with basic of sword fight)
but i hate when i kill someone and they go: "OMG SPRAYER NOOB SPRAYER!!" its f-ing e-style thats why i left gunz, but i'll be back
SPRAY: Shooting Perfectly Right At You :D
if a k-styler can't kill you, then they're not good enough at k-style, or you have aimbot
personally, i've always done h-style, because e-style was freakin boring, i'd rather play cs than that shit. k-style was too fucking hard, and not nearly as rewarding as learning starcraft.
so i could do a basic butterfly, that wall-step thing, the occasional flash step, and multiple wall run. i sucked, i knew it, but w/e
EPT
its f-ing e-style 
