|
On September 01 2010 06:38 tacrats wrote:
Mechanical difficulty may have an impact on how competitive a game can be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with strategic depth. Look at Chess.
Different games, that is like saying that fog of war don't add strategic depth becouse chess don't have it. Even the best players can't control everything, and that is big part of decision making. What you will focus on, when, it forces you to predict how battle will play out, when you can go back with screen to macro hence the complains that in SC2 you can do almost all macro with hot keys.
|
well even in BW
PVT its mech vs zealot/goon + arbiter or carrier - terran wall off vulture/tanks - the occasional all in BIO build
PVP - zealot/goon into reavers / usually to HT + archons
PVZ - toss FE zealot/goon HT and archons - Zerg lings into hydras maybe surprise mutas then transition to ultra
So on paper everything is basically set... but you could diverge alot, Seige expand, or vulture harass, DT rush, DT rush, reaver drop, Corsair reaver, ling all in,
slight variations.... but there are less variations possible in SC2 i think...
|
My opinion is that SC II is not in particulair boring to watch, certainly high level games I really enjoy their decision making process and this will just get better in time, but there is 1 factor I'm a bit worried about and that is the "oehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh AAAAAAAAAAA" factor, which there was so much in awesome Wc3 games
As ex professional Player and shoutcaster i've realised, played, withnessed and even casted amazing moments, moments that literally take my breath away, 2 amazing hero saves on less than 10 hp in a superclose/deciding fight is just breathtaking, and whenever you love a game like I did in wc3 those moments make playing it so worth it, after 2k games of SC II i had seriously little "AAAAAAAA" moments, the best I got was like "wow sick fight" , "ah fucking nice game", but then its the overall feeling that reigns surpreme, not 1 moment, 1 shot, which decides fight, I kinda miss the beauty of those moments which made Wc3 as good as it was ( guess this opinion aint to shared on Team Liquid, but trust me, high level Wc3 was beautifull and unique ), and even Brood war ( even though im a noob at it and got little knowledge ), i did see those amazing things in few games in my life that I watched, with Surrounds being so incredible easy in SC II and their not being a lot of units which you can micro to its fullest potential , I am a bit worried about this fact, maybe it will come in time ~ otherwise I feel SC II for the big main stream audiance will get fairly boring to watch within a year ;(
|
Thats a good question. Personally i find it much more fun to play the game, than to actually watch it. First i thought that the level even on the "pro scene" is not high enough for generating games which are exiting to watch from start to finish. But with broodwar, i enjoyed the old games so much, say Elky and Xds Grrrr, that the level of play might not be the only reason.
Perhaps we are so adapted to broodwar, that we need more time with sc2.
Perhaps the game needs more time for itself to become better and for this reason, generate better games.
Broodwar made Starcraft what it is today, so we should wait what sc2 will become with furthermore patches and its expansions and until then, tell Blizzard what sucks about it.
Overall, its still a great game.
|
On September 02 2010 06:46 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 06:38 tacrats wrote:
Mechanical difficulty may have an impact on how competitive a game can be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with strategic depth. Look at Chess.
Different games, that is like saying that fog of war don't add strategic depth becouse chess don't have it.
No, it's not like saying that at all.
It's like saying fog of war, like mechanical difficulty, is not a requirement for strategic depth, because chess doesn't have it. Which is true.
|
Give starcraft 2 time and it will become immense.
Only a few months into the game and some games are totally action packed. I remember watching TLO vs. Nada and that game on steppes of war was very fun to watch.
The skill ceiling for SC 2 is so so high. Using SHIFT to queue commands enables so much that people will discover. The easy to use control groups is another. The queue links. People will get ridiculously good in time and it will be insane to watch :o .
People thought all these little changes would noobify SC 2, but instead it will simply free APM for the true awesome and will leave us with awesome games with action all over the map all the time.
People will get scary good at sc 2 in time @_@;; Better maps will come out, etc. If you think that the level of play we see now at the pro level is the peak, then yes, sure, it will become boring, but it really is very far from the peak.
No worries, here.
|
At the moment TvZ is barely watchable. Gosc2 today only confirmed that. I had about enough of watching mass reaper games. These games are barely watchable to begin with and one can only hate it after 10+ such games.
|
its somewhat unwatchable or my eyes hurt when the game is on ultra T_T.
|
If you didn't jizz in your pants when you watched game 3 of Drewbie vs Socke at MLG, there's seriously something wrong with you.
|
On September 02 2010 07:35 RotterdaM wrote:
My opinion is that SC II is not in particulair boring to watch, certainly high level games I really enjoy their decision making process and this will just get better in time, but there is 1 factor I'm a bit worried about and that is the "oehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh AAAAAAAAAAA" factor, which there was so much in awesome Wc3 games
As ex professional Player and shoutcaster i've realised, played, withnessed and even casted amazing moments, moments that literally take my breath away, 2 amazing hero saves on less than 10 hp in a superclose/deciding fight is just breathtaking, and whenever you love a game like I did in wc3 those moments make playing it so worth it, after 2k games of SC II i had seriously little "AAAAAAAA" moments, the best I got was like "wow sick fight" , "ah fucking nice game", but then its the overall feeling that reigns surpreme, not 1 moment, 1 shot, which decides fight, I kinda miss the beauty of those moments which made Wc3 as good as it was ( guess this opinion aint to shared on Team Liquid, but trust me, high level Wc3 was beautifull and unique ), and even Brood war ( even though im a noob at it and got little knowledge ), i did see those amazing things in few games in my life that I watched, with Surrounds being so incredible easy in SC II and their not being a lot of units which you can micro to its fullest potential , I am a bit worried about this fact, maybe it will come in time ~ otherwise I feel SC II for the big main stream audiance will get fairly boring to watch within a year ;(
It's Rotterdam!
I agree with you in a sense... I am a really bad WC3 player, just couldn't ever get good no matter how much practice (I am much better at SC, strangely enough) but I loved watching WC3 pro games. I totally know what you mean about the nail biter moments.
I think that's due to the whole hero/higher HP units thing.
For me, StarCraft is more fun to watch overall, but the battles in WC3 were definitely pretty epic. You have to admit, there was a lot of "downtime" in WC3 from a spectator's point of view... sure, the pros are super busy and executing everything perfectly, following creep patterns just right, but for an observer it looks like he's running around killing AI units. You even had the whole upkeep situation, so you'd literally have times where both sides were not building armies because they wanted to stay in low or medium upkeep. At least in SC2 when battles are not progressing, you watch them making strategic decisions in how they tech up and build their army.
|
haha i feel the opposite actually, In wc3 there was atleast always creeping while even in pro sc II games atm i've seen games which consisted of the first 15 min pure macro and nothing but a few scouts :D then the whole creep/backstab situation are a lot more exciting than absolutely nothing ;P and playing upkeep style sure brings dead moments into the game, certainly late game there were moments wc3 was boring cause a undead waited his gold mine out, but in sc there are moments like that as well, just most of the time its mid game when both players are trying to secure their 2nd/3rd expo :D just after that the action explodes ~.
|
On September 02 2010 11:23 muzzy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 07:35 RotterdaM wrote:
My opinion is that SC II is not in particulair boring to watch, certainly high level games I really enjoy their decision making process and this will just get better in time, but there is 1 factor I'm a bit worried about and that is the "oehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh AAAAAAAAAAA" factor, which there was so much in awesome Wc3 games
As ex professional Player and shoutcaster i've realised, played, withnessed and even casted amazing moments, moments that literally take my breath away, 2 amazing hero saves on less than 10 hp in a superclose/deciding fight is just breathtaking, and whenever you love a game like I did in wc3 those moments make playing it so worth it, after 2k games of SC II i had seriously little "AAAAAAAA" moments, the best I got was like "wow sick fight" , "ah fucking nice game", but then its the overall feeling that reigns surpreme, not 1 moment, 1 shot, which decides fight, I kinda miss the beauty of those moments which made Wc3 as good as it was ( guess this opinion aint to shared on Team Liquid, but trust me, high level Wc3 was beautifull and unique ), and even Brood war ( even though im a noob at it and got little knowledge ), i did see those amazing things in few games in my life that I watched, with Surrounds being so incredible easy in SC II and their not being a lot of units which you can micro to its fullest potential , I am a bit worried about this fact, maybe it will come in time ~ otherwise I feel SC II for the big main stream audiance will get fairly boring to watch within a year ;( It's Rotterdam! I agree with you in a sense... I am a really bad WC3 player, just couldn't ever get good no matter how much practice (I am much better at SC, strangely enough) but I loved watching WC3 pro games. I totally know what you mean about the nail biter moments. I think that's due to the whole hero/higher HP units thing. For me, StarCraft is more fun to watch overall, but the battles in WC3 were definitely pretty epic. You have to admit, there was a lot of "downtime" in WC3 from a spectator's point of view... sure, the pros are super busy and executing everything perfectly, following creep patterns just right, but for an observer it looks like he's running around killing AI units. You even had the whole upkeep situation, so you'd literally have times where both sides were not building armies because they wanted to stay in low or medium upkeep. At least in SC2 when battles are not progressing, you watch them making strategic decisions in how they tech up and build their army.
Agreed, but again I think this is an argument of Dynamics.
In sc2 there is no battle Dynamics. The winner of a battle is pre-determined by unit composition and size.
However what we see in Wc3 and BW is the outcome of battles being determined by control. Of course unit size and composition still matters but control is still a large part of it, which is what makes it exciting. You watch the battle not knowing what to expect.
|
On September 02 2010 12:14 RoarMan wrote:
In sc2 there is no battle Dynamics. The winner of a battle is pre-determined by unit composition and size.
I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The dynamic may not be as micro intensive as BW or WC3 (yet, let's see how it develops) but to say it's all about composition is exaggerating.
There is a lot to a battle to make sure it turns out right...
Just earlier I lost to a terran timing push... tanks/marines, and I went into a mini-rage about how I hate Terran. In retrospect, I fucked up the battle. All my banelings plowed into his tanks, wasting their splash damage and allowing his marines to mop up.
If I'd have flanked properly and timed the zerglings to hit from the front as soon as the banelings came from behind, I'd have taken that battle easily.
I still think that as SC2 develops, more and more micro and tricks will come into play. Right now everyone is racing to perfect their strategy and overall game control. Once they start to reach the top of that and strategy changes slow (what we considered good just a month ago is now practically "old school" already in SC2), they'll need to look for any advantage they can... that's when micro and tactics will start to become refined.
|
In general when compared to SC1 ... SC2 so far has been a little bit more boring to watch. In general games are shorter and more decisive imo ... leading to short and generally uninteresting games. That's not to say there haven't been good games to watch, but I think on average SC2 games are definitely more boring.
|
IMO I think the auto clump ai needs to be edited, it would allow for much longer battles, eg mmm engaging templar, runinng a z army into tanks, getting 1 control group of marines being fungal growth etc. However this might be more of a help to a certain race compared to another.
|
Watch Sen play, and TRY to be bored. It's impossible
|
On September 02 2010 13:08 muzzy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 12:14 RoarMan wrote:
In sc2 there is no battle Dynamics. The winner of a battle is pre-determined by unit composition and size.
I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The dynamic may not be as micro intensive as BW or WC3 (yet, let's see how it develops) but to say it's all about composition is exaggerating. There is a lot to a battle to make sure it turns out right... Just earlier I lost to a terran timing push... tanks/marines, and I went into a mini-rage about how I hate Terran. In retrospect, I fucked up the battle. All my banelings plowed into his tanks, wasting their splash damage and allowing his marines to mop up. If I'd have flanked properly and timed the zerglings to hit from the front as soon as the banelings came from behind, I'd have taken that battle easily. I still think that as SC2 develops, more and more micro and tricks will come into play. Right now everyone is racing to perfect their strategy and overall game control. Once they start to reach the top of that and strategy changes slow (what we considered good just a month ago is now practically "old school" already in SC2), they'll need to look for any advantage they can... that's when micro and tactics will start to become refined.
the thing is, yes SC2 requires micro, but the micro can be easily perfected. It's like saying PvZ timing push, if you don't micro you die. Yeah, well all the micro you need is a guardian shield or two, FF the ramp, and make immortals target roaches/spines... It's very easy to do.
In SCBW it's very easy to get out macroed. I mean marine micro vs zealots in SC2 is soo easy vs double ten gate... How about a 4 pool in bw? You can get oblitarated so easily.
It's pretty much like this. In BW... Omg he lost with a better army composition, insany micro by player X. In SC2... Omg he lost with the bigger army, terrible army positioning and unit control. BW micro is just harder.
|
On September 02 2010 13:08 muzzy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 12:14 RoarMan wrote:
In sc2 there is no battle Dynamics. The winner of a battle is pre-determined by unit composition and size.
I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The dynamic may not be as micro intensive as BW or WC3 (yet, let's see how it develops) but to say it's all about composition is exaggerating. There is a lot to a battle to make sure it turns out right... Just earlier I lost to a terran timing push... tanks/marines, and I went into a mini-rage about how I hate Terran. In retrospect, I fucked up the battle. All my banelings plowed into his tanks, wasting their splash damage and allowing his marines to mop up. If I'd have flanked properly and timed the zerglings to hit from the front as soon as the banelings came from behind, I'd have taken that battle easily. I still think that as SC2 develops, more and more micro and tricks will come into play. Right now everyone is racing to perfect their strategy and overall game control. Once they start to reach the top of that and strategy changes slow (what we considered good just a month ago is now practically "old school" already in SC2), they'll need to look for any advantage they can... that's when micro and tactics will start to become refined.
But in all honestly, is the control THAT big part of a deal in Sc2? I mean yes you have a great example there, but really if the terran player had a pure mech composition you're banelings would been useless.
I know I'm stretching things a little far but bear with me, if you don't have enough of something and you don't have the right somethings in Sc2 you will fall flat on your face. Wether this is due to giving units a more direct counter, the lack of a really fleshed out meta game, it does matter what you are walking into the fight with.
In BW for example, dark swarm could be the end of an entire Terran push, it didn't even matter if you had like 3 lurkers, Dark Swarm is fucking scary and used properly will chase a big force away. However, not wielding Dark Swarm properly will also just be your downfall.
Irradiate would completely nullify the use of mutalisks, but with some good control you can counter it.
But in Sc2, how much of your control is really effecting the out come of your battle? I mean your baneling example as I said is great but the fact that you had enough banelings and enough lings probably helped you more then the fact that you could have controlled it a certain way.
I am certain though that there will be better micro plays and it will become integrated into the game as things develop, this I agree.
Sorry if I'm not too clear or concise, my inadequacies in language limit my brain 
|
On September 02 2010 16:26 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 13:08 muzzy wrote:On September 02 2010 12:14 RoarMan wrote:
In sc2 there is no battle Dynamics. The winner of a battle is pre-determined by unit composition and size.
I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The dynamic may not be as micro intensive as BW or WC3 (yet, let's see how it develops) but to say it's all about composition is exaggerating. There is a lot to a battle to make sure it turns out right... Just earlier I lost to a terran timing push... tanks/marines, and I went into a mini-rage about how I hate Terran. In retrospect, I fucked up the battle. All my banelings plowed into his tanks, wasting their splash damage and allowing his marines to mop up. If I'd have flanked properly and timed the zerglings to hit from the front as soon as the banelings came from behind, I'd have taken that battle easily. I still think that as SC2 develops, more and more micro and tricks will come into play. Right now everyone is racing to perfect their strategy and overall game control. Once they start to reach the top of that and strategy changes slow (what we considered good just a month ago is now practically "old school" already in SC2), they'll need to look for any advantage they can... that's when micro and tactics will start to become refined. But in all honestly, is the control THAT big part of a deal in Sc2? I mean yes you have a great example there, but really if the terran player had a pure mech composition you're banelings would been useless. I know I'm stretching things a little far but bear with me, if you don't have enough of something and you don't have the right somethings in Sc2 you will fall flat on your face. Wether this is due to giving units a more direct counter, the lack of a really fleshed out meta game, it does matter what you are walking into the fight with. In BW for example, dark swarm could be the end of an entire Terran push, it didn't even matter if you had like 3 lurkers, Dark Swarm is fucking scary and used properly will chase a big force away. However, not wielding Dark Swarm properly will also just be your downfall. Irradiate would completely nullify the use of mutalisks, but with some good control you can counter it. But in Sc2, how much of your control is really effecting the out come of your battle? I mean your baneling example as I said is great but the fact that you had enough banelings and enough lings probably helped you more then the fact that you could have controlled it a certain way. I am certain though that there will be better micro plays and it will become integrated into the game as things develop, this I agree. Sorry if I'm not too clear or concise, my inadequacies in language limit my brain
You bring up some valid points, and I'd definitely agree that SC2 has a much more "Rock, Paper, Scissors" feel to it.
Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I hope that the game will continue to develop, both from player input and Blizzard patching it.
I doubt it will ever be quite the same style as BW, but hopefully the pure RPS aspect changes a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
