|
On October 07 2010 09:44 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote:
I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by. You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak. SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification. It didn't.
What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted.
Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
|
NTT speaks the truth, though it won't stop me from playing 
Hopefully once Korea actually gets in on SCII we will see better maps and better balance.
|
On October 07 2010 10:09 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:44 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote:
I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by. You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak. SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification. It didn't. What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted. Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
|
On October 07 2010 10:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:09 TOloseGT wrote:On October 07 2010 09:44 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote:
I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by. You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak. SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification. It didn't. What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted. Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys. Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
Obviously nothing, as the three races are an unalterable dynamic of BW/SC2. I wasn't agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that just because you see nothing of similar depth was added, doesn't mean that's true.
|
On October 07 2010 10:32 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:22 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 10:09 TOloseGT wrote:On October 07 2010 09:44 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote:
I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by. You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak. SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification. It didn't. What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted. Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys. Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history? Obviously nothing, as the three races are an unalterable dynamic of BW/SC2. I wasn't agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that just because you see nothing of similar depth was added, doesn't mean that's true.
Yes, it does. What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
In fact, what innovative or complex mechanic was added in Starcraft 2 at all? The most we got were some nice abilities like warping in. He would call them gimmicky, but even if they were "neat" and "original", they would still be relatively minor compared to what BW gave us.
|
On October 07 2010 09:48 StriverzG wrote:
Blizzard is going to allow a free name change?
Not likely.
|
On October 07 2010 10:38 Tone_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 09:48 StriverzG wrote:
Blizzard is going to allow a free name change? Not likely.
They already announced they will.
|
On October 07 2010 10:36 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2010 10:32 TOloseGT wrote:On October 07 2010 10:22 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 10:09 TOloseGT wrote:On October 07 2010 09:44 Half wrote:On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote:
I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by. You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak. SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification. It didn't. What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted. Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys. Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history? Obviously nothing, as the three races are an unalterable dynamic of BW/SC2. I wasn't agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that just because you see nothing of similar depth was added, doesn't mean that's true. Yes, it does. What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history? In fact, what innovative or complex mechanic was added in Starcraft 2 at all? The most we got were some nice abilities like warping in. He would call them gimmicky, but even if they were "neat" and "original", they would still be relatively minor compared to what BW gave us.
The new abilities like Contaminate, Force Field etc., new creep use, which has started to come out from Idra etc., Transfusion, Chrono Boost. Those abilities will be fun to watch when people figure out cute tricks for them.
The new mechanics that simplified stuff like mineral rallying, MBS are necessary in order to gain new customers. While it "dumbs" down the mechanics, it lets people worry about the other stuff. NTT doesn't like the game and that's completely fine. What's not OK is parading around acting like BW is that much superior.
|
Sorry for the low post count, but I speak as someone who is in the process of making a small game company, and I have had three years to watch SC2's development from alpha, to launch.
SC2 rejected a demanding U.I in favor of fundamentally accessible mechanics.
While it is easier to macro in SC2, mules, supply drops, Chronoboost, and Larva Injection offered many ways to fall behind your opponent. Zerg is especially difficult to keep momentum on multiple bases. Chronoboost is a very very strong mechanic because of the three potential uses it has. Miss using Chronoboosts cost people games all the time at lower levels, and create interesting timing windows for better players.
Warp In is harder to defend, however, the ability to create instant reinforcements that can be sniped during construction do add a good layer to player interactions. Pylons being more fragile than their BW counterparts make for good map control battles where the P makes a push, falters, then has to dig their heels in to keep their forward pylon intact. This is good for the spectator and player aspect of the game. Skill also is tied to Warp In in that you can't que units with Warp Gates, giving an ever increasing advantage to players who do not falter in their Warp Gate management of the course of a long game.
Individual units like the Collosus and Pheonix offer increased micro potential.
While many players are content to mass and A move to victory, Collosi require good positioning to maximize damage between shots, especially after their damage retooling in the beta.
-Collosi are also very expensive and are very vulnerable, allowing for good snipe attempts on the defending player's part. Further, there is absolutely 0 random factor in the Thermal sweep, unlike the lovable Reaver, while the spectator value was wonderful, it was a crap shoot, and did step on the toes of what was otherwise a very skill intensive strat.
-Phoenix are an excellent replacement of the Corsair, offering the same roll AA support. The grav ability is strong from a design perspective due to the fact that it has a short channel duration, and has enough range to make positioning matter. The fact that it can fire while moving gives many players an opportunity to maximize damage while maintaining speed. The idea is sound.
While Zerg may or may not be underpowered, it is less developed than T or P. This doesn't stop it from being very hard to play.
While I dislike the fact that it is very hard to be aggressive with a traditionally aggressive race, I can't deny the value or skill it takes to aggressively spread creep without falling behind.
Units like the Roach and the Infestor are still not fully utilized
Burrow Micro with the Roach will eventually be used by players with sufficient APM who can maintain a high level of micro. Keeping units alive to maximize damage is a core concept in BW, and is in no way gimmicky. The ability to pull wounded burrowed Roaches back may also have interesting applications.
The Infestor is really starting to shine as worthy and ultimately more useful successor to the BW Queen. For all of the hate NP gets, it is much better than Spawn Broodlings at taking out high priority targets, and its applications are much broader and given that you are now controlling a new unit, maximizing the damage or abilities from that unit require additional APM. Much more than SB ever did.
Fungal Growth requires more careful placement due to its smaller radius, and is actually applicable for worker harras as it not only delays mining, but will kill workers with repeated uses.
Infested Terran finally is being used for burrow harras and an answer to Dropship play. Using 2 abilities in tandem to take out a unit is acceptably apm intensive.
Do the Zerg need a T3 caster like in BW? In time, possibly, but let's appreciate the fact that this time around, Z gets a T2 caster that doesn't have to be hid for 50 seconds after spawning to influence the game.
|
Who is NTT?
User was warned for this post
|
On October 07 2010 11:01 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
-Phoenix are an excellent replacement of the Corsair, offering the same roll AA support.
Nope. They are completely different, which can be a problem vs. mass mutalisks.
|
NTT is right that Starcraft Broodwar required more skill than Starcraft 2.
No, NTT didn't master Starcraft 2. He wasn't a top tournament player by any means. And if you studied his replays, I'm sure you would find plenty of mistakes. But I think NTT saw Starcraft 2 would not let him express his skills in the way he wanted to express them, became frustrated, and dashed off a post which made him sound a little immature.
In Starcraft Broodwar, for example, managing 4 bases was an extreme challenge. So much so that players were uncomfortable expanding that many times. It is mentally taxing to do the plethora of things required to manage 4 bases . And many players, instead of trying to step out of their multi-tasking comfort zone, simply opted to pump out units from two bases and do what was essentially a two-base all-in (as a kind of unrelated note, if you want to increase your skill, understand that you can two-base, and even three-base, all-in, and stop doing it).
NTT liked expanding everywhering and playing in that multi-tasking chaos. Now, while managing 4 bases (or 3 bases, or even 2) in Starcraft 2 is by no means easy, it's not nearly as intimidating as before. And I think NTT wasn't happy with that. So he quit. Fine with me. The truth is, I hope that in patches, or in the expansions, Blizzard either adds more "macro mechanics," (e.g., chrono boost, spawn larva, calldown mule), or removes some of the user interface simplifications (e.g., multiple building selection, unlimited unit groups, and automine). If they don't, I'll probably leave too. But I don't understand the game fully yet, and there is a chance that Blizzard might make some good changes, so I might as well wait it out and enjoy the rather fun game.
I'm Iccuping on the side anyways.
|
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/443015912
I was sifting through his battle.net posts and discovered this gem of a topic. He goes into detail on why many units are imbalanced, why their imbalances should be/can't be fixed, and what this means to the overall balance of the game. He plays T and disses a lot of Z and P units so it's kind of disproportionate, and i don't necessarily agree with many of his proposed fixes, but the analysis is still worth a read.
gsl finals spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +I think cool's play was amazing and his opponent's was uninspiring for a finals, but imo what NTT says about the TvZ matchup is shockingly accurate and proven to a fine point in the finals.
|
the future of sc2 is perfectly fine, many good players say it is a good game. If people like tester accept it then who is someone such as NTT to say otherwise, clearly he just couldn't become good @ it so he rage-quit hard.
|
so when do we sign up for his account? I need a european account.
BTW, I disagree with NTT, since when controlling 12 units is better than controlling all of them? I think he is just living in the past.
|
On October 07 2010 13:56 patrick321 wrote:http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/443015912I was sifting through his battle.net posts and discovered this gem of a topic. He goes into detail on why many units are imbalanced, why their imbalances should be/can't be fixed, and what this means to the overall balance of the game. He plays T and disses a lot of Z and P units so it's kind of disproportionate, and i don't necessarily agree with many of his proposed fixes, but the analysis is still worth a read. gsl finals spoiler + Show Spoiler +I think cool's play was amazing and his opponent's was uninspiring for a finals, but imo what NTT says about the TvZ matchup is shockingly accurate and proven to a fine point in the finals.
Some of the things he says in that post are utterly absurd. Anyone who reads that will likely see that he's way off the mark on a number of points and is really just coming across as someone who either a) genuinely doesn't like the game, b) can't adapt to it, or c) is living in the past.
Example:
Ultralisks: Once present, Terran can no longer attack with ground forces. These things are so ridiculously, stupidly, offensively effective with their sick sick sick splash damage and armor, that no Terran army composition can effectively deal with them.
Ummm... seriously? When were Ultras ever that overpowered? Christ, I rembmer a game between Idra and Drewbie (if I recall correctly) where Drewbie was literally toying with Idra's Ultras for at least half a game. Drewbie eventually lost but it was because he ran out of cash. He killed hundreds of resources more in Ultras than he lost - it was a joke. That game was just a few days prior to NTTs post about Ultras being completely overpowered, and seriously, when has anyone thought Ultras were so strong that Terran had no solution to them?
Another Example:
Reapers: Whoever designed this unit is a silly, silly person. It is unbalancable. Whatever changes end up being made (if any) to this unit, it will end up either useless or overpowered. It is currently far too strong against Zerg, and epically useless against Protoss and Terran with the possible exception of one for scouting/harrassment (well designed!).
So we've been through the whole "OMG Reapers are too strong!" phase. People were screaming for them to be nerfed. Personally, I thought the nerf wasn't required - rather more time was needed for counters to develop (as Idra showed us in his games vs. Morrow; you can get away from Roach vs. Reaper and get Mutas to cripple the Terran before Marauders). Still, now they've been nerfed and things aren't so bad, are they? It looks like they may *gasp!* actually be balanced. Also, since when did anyone ever consider Reapers useless against Protoss? And for the record, they're great for scouting - yes, they are well-designed.
So here are two great examples of the knee-jerk reaction we're talking about for near 30-pages in this thread.
If the guy doesn't like the game, so be it; but my Christ, reading his posts, he's clearly out-of-touch with how this game plays - or maybe he's just too wrapped up in the past. Who knows. Regardless, I won't be putting much stock into his tirades.
SC2 is good. I loved SC and BW; but we can't keep complaining about MBS and auto-mining. So far as I know, those weren't part of SC or BW on purpose, they're products of poor design. There are two expansions and numerous patches coming for SC2 (they were patching vanilla for years), so hang in there, enjoy it, and put the free time MBS and auto-mining gives you into micro, tactics, multi-pronged attacks, larva, MULES, CBs, etc. etc.
|
There is this phenomenon in poker. I don't know the name of it but it goes something like this.
A lot of people used to think Poker was all about luck. Not completely absent of skill, but heavily based on luck. It was thought to be so luck-based that it was not considered "sport" in any sense of the word.
It didn't matter what logical arguments you presented. It just didn't make sense to people.
But then something happened: the same people kept making it to the final few tables in major tournaments. Over and over and over and over again. So much so that it became obvious to everyone that Poker is a skill-based game. Most people can't tell you why this is, but they know it to be true.
...
The same people keep making it far in SC2 tournaments. NTT doesn't know why. Most people on this forum don't know why. But its pretty obvious that this game isn't a coin flip of build orders.
|
Haha NTT provides good drama. I enjoyed a lot of his BW mass expo and drops games but don't really get his SC2 style at all. Maybe he's just getting too old for the scene and wants to go out with a bang of drama.
|
I was actually rewatching the idra v morrow game when i saw Mjolnir's post and you couldn't be more wrong about the ultras in it. Morrow's army lost straight up to the ultras twice in a row and the only reason he didn't die outright was because he had 4 turrets + 2-4 bunkers + Planetary fortresses at every one of his expos. Also, because ultras still did ram attack back then there was nothing idra could do against repaired PF's except mass expand. He only lost some of the later battles because kulas is a clusterfuck of a map and he kept having to fight in narrow places, but his mass expansions eventually payed off and brought him the win. In summary, the ultras won every battle they fought in open land but couldn't compete against PF bullshittery and the horribleness that is kulas.
I play P so i don't know how valid ultras typically are ZvT but this isn't the replay to show their failings.
Reapers are an easier thing to understand. I don't fully agree with NTT that they will become worthless but they're definately a niche unit that rarely sees any use past early game. Harassment and scouting are all it really has going for it and terran has equally effective alternatives for both.
|
*ragequit*? really...With stuff like the GSL, it isn't going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
