You didn't try getting through to us. You just made a bunch of statements that can't be proven or disproven. I don't want to wait years for SC2 to finally bring in some units that are fun to use.
No crap they can't be proven or disproven. That's the point. We don't know. The metagame plays completely different than it did two months ago. The metagame is still evolving. It's too early to figure that out. I don't know where it's going to end up. Neither do you. I'm completely open to the idea that the game can't be salvaged in its current state. It's very possible. You're not open to that. And if you aren't, I don't know why you guys would subject yourself to this whining and moaning if Brood War is the consummate real-time strategy game and you have it sitting on your shelf. .
Everything i hear from you is "Give it more time, it will solve itself mystically, we are all ignorant and non-believers." It won't. It just won't. We experimented, we still do experiment, but most of the units are just dull.
How do you want to use the colossus different? Drops aren't effective. They aren't effective on their own. They aren't microable in any otherway than kiting backwards. That's everything there is to the colossus. You won't find anymore uses than this over time. You can see it on the units stats. Many of us HAVE the knowledge of years of RTS expierience, mainly bw. There aren't suddenly new fundamentls we aren't aware off. They won't just sprout out of the game and make us look like fools.
And just for the unlikely case that there still WOULD be another use for the colossus than remain in a 200/200 army guarded by force field and other shit throwing themselves into the way of the other army so that the colossus itself can completely own the other army. Blizzard will patch it.
Watch at the Void-Ray. Rather interesting in theory. In reality, completely dull. It even negates micro, because if you micro them, they won't get charged up and remain useless. You can't harass with them, because they have poor accelertion / speed and get owned by the basic units like queens / marines. You aren't microable. But when you get them in big numbers of 15+, they mow everything down with a-click. You just have to look at the given opportunities an unit gives you, to say if it MIGHT become useful.
Now its up to you, provide us with stuff that could make units in sc2 more interesting with the current stuff we have to use. And don't just shit always the same phrases like "give it time" , "there surely will be new things discovered". People said that since the beta, they were wrong until now.
You didn't try getting through to us. You just made a bunch of statements that can't be proven or disproven. I don't want to wait years for SC2 to finally bring in some units that are fun to use.
No crap they can't be proven or disproven. That's the point. We don't know. The metagame plays completely different than it did two months ago. The metagame is still evolving. It's too early to figure that out. I don't know where it's going to end up. Neither do you. I'm completely open to the idea that the game can't be salvaged in its current state. It's very possible. You're not open to that. And if you aren't, I don't know why you guys would subject yourself to this whining and moaning if Brood War is the consummate real-time strategy game and you have it sitting on your shelf. .
Everything i hear from you is "Give it more time, it will solve itself mystically, we are all ignorant and non-believers." It won't. It just won't. We experimented, we still do experiment, but most of the units are just dull.
How do you want to use the colossus different? Drops aren't effective. They aren't effective on their own. They aren't microable in any otherway than kiting backwards. That's everything there is to the colossus. You won't find anymore uses than this over time. You can see it on the units stats. Many of us HAVE the knowledge of years of RTS expierience, mainly bw. There aren't suddenly new fundamentls we aren't aware off. They won't just sprout out of the game and make us look like fools.
And just for the unlikely case that there still WOULD be another use for the colossus than remain in a 200/200 army guarded by force field and other shit throwing themselves into the way of the other army so that the colossus itself can completely own the other army. Blizzard will patch it.
Watch at the Void-Ray. Rather interesting in theory. In reality, completely dull. It even negates micro, because if you micro them, they won't get charged up and remain useless. You can't harass with them, because they have poor accelertion / speed and get owned by the basic units like queens / marines. You aren't microable. But when you get them in big numbers of 15+, they mow everything down with a-click. You just have to look at the given opportunities an unit gives you, to say if it MIGHT become useful.
Now its up to you, provide us with stuff that could make units in sc2 more interesting with the current stuff we have to use. And don't just shit always the same phrases like "give it time" , "there surely will be new things discovered". People said that since the beta, they were wrong until now.
Because i care about the branch starcraft and the progress of e-sports in the west? I care because i want this game to be the best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business. I want it to be as, if not more successful than bw was in korea.
That's the reason i want this game to be as good as possible, and by waiting and twiddling my thumbs there won't be a change. The game won't just be as exciting. It makes me frustrated to see that something with so much potential, backed up by over a decade of expierience of its predecessor and what made it so great, gets wasted. And people like you are promoting the waste of that potential by saying give it more time.
God damnit why do i even respond, you cant mean your stance and stuff serious.
On March 19 2011 00:50 Elefanto wrote: Because i care about the branch starcraft and the progress of e-sports in the west? I care because i want this game to be the best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business. I want it to be as, if not more successful than bw was in korea.
That's the reason i want this game to be as good as possible, and by waiting and twiddling my thumbs there won't be a change. The game won't just be as exciting. It makes me frustrated to see that something with so much potential, backed up by over a decade of expierience of its predecessor and what made it so great, gets wasted. And people like you are promoting the waste of that potential by saying give it more time.
God damnit why do i even respond, you cant mean your stance and stuff serious.
I apologize for that. I thought "fun video game" came before "best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business". After all, that's how it worked for Brood War. The game held up to scrutiny and then people started playing it professionally. So as I said earlier in the thread, if you want to blame Blizzard for anything, don't blame them for releasing a game that doesn't measure up to your standards. Blame Blizzard for designing the program in a manner that allowed them to consolidate control of the tournament scene and proceed to create an artificial tournament scene as a means to nudge the competitive-ready Brood War off to the side. Blame Blizzard for taking the game that "wasn't ready" and putting their full confidence behind it, rather than giving Starcraft II time to go through its inevitable growing pains. Don't blame me for making a very open assumption that the heights of the metagame and the skill cap have not been achieved.
@Ribbon: Yeah, you aren't really addressing any points. Most of the points you made I just end up thinking what the hell you are trying to say. I am not going to respond if the argument will devolve into some back and forth debate about insignificant points that don't relate to the op, please come up with fresh points that actually work towards disproving what I say. I am also writing this after being at the pub so yeah, please account for that if I make any minor mistakes.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
Yeah see, I don't really understand this point. What are you trying to say? The point is the nerfs to psi storm were due to a bunch of gold and lower level leaguers (the majority) complaining about it. However if psi storm were not smart-cast they would still deal 112 damage today, because less people would have complained about it.
I don't really get what you mean by suggesting BW is imba is heretical. BW was imbalanced, however these imbalances were overcome by smarter unit design and stronger mechanical focus.
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
What the hell does this sentence even mean?
Anyway to address what I think you are trying to say. I said, in BW if you have more bases, it becomes harder to manage because of Single Building Selection and telling workers to mine. This mechanic does not exist in SC2. Did I ever advocate that SC2 needed this? No. I am simply stating that SC2 does not have a base management mechanic similar to this, and macro mechanics fall far short in mitigating this issue.
As for unit control. Yes SC2's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented flocking AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units. SC2's UI is bullshit because blizz thought it would be a good idea to put buttons fucking everywhere so players could click on them and screw up their micro. That's actually some serious bullshit right there.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Exactly, one persons trash is another persons treasure. Using the word "wrestle" for every BW mechanic doesn't serve well in proving your point.
Arguably. The arguments in favor are that
1. It's harder 2. Brood War did it.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
What the hell? are you stoned? I am not even going to answer this.
So what does my argument have to do with the OP? Well many of the mechanics mentioned have brought the lower and higher level players closer together. Causing the top positions to be more volatile.
On March 19 2011 00:50 Elefanto wrote: Because i care about the branch starcraft and the progress of e-sports in the west? I care because i want this game to be the best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business. I want it to be as, if not more successful than bw was in korea.
That's the reason i want this game to be as good as possible, and by waiting and twiddling my thumbs there won't be a change. The game won't just be as exciting. It makes me frustrated to see that something with so much potential, backed up by over a decade of expierience of its predecessor and what made it so great, gets wasted. And people like you are promoting the waste of that potential by saying give it more time.
God damnit why do i even respond, you cant mean your stance and stuff serious.
I apologize for that. I thought "fun video game" came before "best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business". After all, that's how it worked for Brood War. The game held up to scrutiny and then people started playing it professionally. So as I said earlier in the thread, if you want to blame Blizzard for anything, don't blame them for releasing a game that doesn't measure up to your standards. Blame Blizzard for designing the program in a manner that allowed them to consolidate control of the tournament scene and proceed to create an artificial tournament scene as a means to nudge the competitive-ready Brood War off to the side. Blame Blizzard for taking the game that "wasn't ready" and putting their full confidence behind it, rather than giving Starcraft II time to go through its inevitable growing pains. Don't blame me for making a very open assumption that the heights of the metagame and the skill cap have not been achieved.
Well Blizzard designed Starcraft 1 as a fun game, but for Starcraft 2 they designed it with "lets make it easy to play so we can sell tons of copies ... errr market it to a wider audience ... and then make a popular eSport out of it in the west". Thus we have been "straightjacketed" onto tiny maps with unlimited unit selection and perfect movement AI so we can have the maximum number of explosions and short games because thats what viewers ask for, right? It works for Hollywood sequels, so why not for SC2?
The volatility of the game should be clear by now (after we had a beta where certain tiny maps were obviously favoring non-Zergs) and still they are fiddling around with unit stats in an attempt to "fix things". Systematic changes are needed and these changes need to make the game "less perfect" in its control so people need to play perfect instead of simply having a critical mass of units bunched up at one spot ready to waltz over any opposition.
Well Blizzard designed Starcraft 1 as a fun game, but for Starcraft 2 they designed it with "lets make it easy to play so we can sell tons of copies ... errr market it to a wider audience ... and then make a popular eSport out of it in the west". Thus we have been "straightjacketed" onto tiny maps with unlimited unit selection and perfect movement AI so we can have the maximum number of explosions and short games because thats what viewers ask for, right? It works for Hollywood sequels, so why not for SC2?
Well yeah. Removing single-building selection and introducing automining and removing the unit selection cap were the right move. And even if you disagree with that (and I'm sure you will), the problem is that when you remove those things, you need to add something back. When you remove tank controls from Resident Evil, you need to find a way to keep the tension in how the game controls. When you eliminate Wavedashing glitches from Super Smash Brothers: Melee, you need to find a way to replace that lost manual dexterity in Super Smash Brothers: Brawl. But from what I can tell, everybody here wanted the same game. I would have loved a global Hold Fire button. I would have loved natural base defense akin to what players got in Warcraft III. I would have loved a more complex rule set with more natural terrain features like Watch Towers and Destructible Rocks and Xel'Naga Candy Shops. But we ended up getting something that very much resembled the original game. It just doesn't require the same raw mechanical input. So now people are surprised that it's a "dumbed-down version of Brood War?" They wanted the same game and they got it.
On March 19 2011 01:28 Rabiator wrote:
The volatility of the game should be clear by now (after we had a beta where certain tiny maps were obviously favoring non-Zergs) and still they are fiddling around with unit stats in an attempt to "fix things". Systematic changes are needed and these changes need to make the game "less perfect" in its control so people need to play perfect instead of simply having a critical mass of units bunched up at one spot ready to waltz over any opposition.
Blizzard is doing themselves an incredible disservice with how off-hands they've been with the map pool. They should have somebody consulting the community around-the-clock on what maps are popular and what maps aren't. I agree with people that game theory is going to evolve much more rapidly than it did with the previous Blizzard strategy games, just not to the same extent. And if that's the case, the map pool should look completely different than what we had eight months ago.
On March 19 2011 01:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Blizzard is doing themselves an incredible disservice with how off-hands they've been with the map pool. They should have somebody consulting the community around-the-clock on what maps are popular and what maps aren't. I agree with people that game theory is going to evolve much more rapidly than it did with the previous Blizzard strategy games, just not to the same extent. And if that's the case, the map pool should look completely different than what we had eight months ago.
To be fair, you of all people (I lurked WC3 General) should know how difficult it is for Blizzard to get a good impression from the community on just about anything. This site and places like Gosugamers are hardly representative of all their consumers, bnet forums are about as healthy as raw sewage, and they lack a good way to contact more casual players they're struggling not to alienate. I think they're finally moving in the right direction with changing the map pool by league (Browder said they were considering this recently, I believe) because then at least the thumbs-down statistics will be a little more useful and they can more carefully tailor it to people of different skill levels.
As for the volatility argument overall, I can't think of a game in this GSL when the player who played a worse game won and I still am not seeing perfection at the macro level, let alone the micro level. Just from that I am reluctant to talk about skill ceilings.
On March 17 2011 01:59 tsuxiit wrote: The game is definitely too volatile and unless Blizzard makes some radical change to how the early game works (more reliable scouting, more survivable strategies so that surprise causes damage instead of outright losing at that moment, or a greater emphasis on mechanical ability as the game progresses forward) its not going to change in the near future.
This volatility coupled with the absurd ease of SC2's mechanics mean that it's basically impossible for a single player to dominate with a combination of mechanical ability and strategic superiority when you can get a literally unpredictable opponent and lose straight up to shit like DTs. It detracts from the real strategic integrity of StarCraft in my opinion.
Or you could uninstall the game becuase you clearly dont understand how to improve at it. Anyone who thinks that Blizzard needs to make changes to make them a better player should stick to Webkins imo. Getting better at SC2 is 100% in the hands of the player and requires hard work, practice, research, studying, analysis of replays etc.. Tiger Woods doesnt complain that the greens arent maintained well when he misses a putt- dont blame other factors for your own failures.
Actually, manual injection of larva is as uninteresting as SBS, or limited control groups. I'm still dumb-funded that they didn't let auto-injection. It makes no sense to simplify so many mechanics only to introduce a new thoughtless one.
I understand that the Zerg would have too few things to do if injection was automatic, but they could have found something with more strategical purpose like mules or chrono boosts.
On March 19 2011 01:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Blizzard is doing themselves an incredible disservice with how off-hands they've been with the map pool. They should have somebody consulting the community around-the-clock on what maps are popular and what maps aren't. I agree with people that game theory is going to evolve much more rapidly than it did with the previous Blizzard strategy games, just not to the same extent. And if that's the case, the map pool should look completely different than what we had eight months ago.
To be fair, you of all people (I lurked WC3 General) should know how difficult it is for Blizzard to get a good impression from the community on just about anything. This site and places like Gosugamers are hardly representative of all their consumers, bnet forums are about as healthy as raw sewage, and they lack a good way to contact more casual players they're struggling not to alienate. I think they're finally moving in the right direction with changing the map pool by league (Browder said they were considering this recently, I believe) because then at least the thumbs-down statistics will be a little more useful and they can more carefully tailor it to people of different skill levels.
From what I've gathered, player bases are good at understanding how to manipulate variables within a system but aren't very good at understanding the theory behind a system. It's like code. I can figure out what needs to be changed by looking at PHP webcode but hell if I can actually write it. When it comes to general game design, I trust the developer over the player. That doesn't mean the developer is perfect. They can do a lot of dumb things. But let's remember: Brood War became a competitive game without an "e-sports team" on the Blizzard staff. That said, when it comes to level design (whether a map or an arena or a battlefield), I take the player's input. I can't think of many great video games where the developer's levels are superior to the custom content created afterward. Maps are designed to accommodate minor changes to the game design. So if the massive player base can say "Okay, this is broken, but if we just change one thing in the level," it's going to be a much more effective peer-review process than a company placing one or two "level designers" on a salary (after the game has released) and telling them to have at it.
On March 19 2011 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote: As for the volatility argument overall, I can't think of a game in this GSL when the player who played a worse game won and I still am not seeing perfection at the macro level, let alone the micro level. Just from that I am reluctant to talk about skill ceilings.
Neither have I. I'll vouch for you on that. I'd be curious to see if anyone has any suggestions for matches reflecting such an outcome.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
Yeah see, I don't really understand this point. What are you trying to say? The point is the nerfs to psi storm were due to a bunch of gold and lower level leaguers (the majority) complaining about it. However if psi storm were not smart-cast they would still deal 112 damage today, because less people would have complained about it.
See that bolded part? That's the part I disagree with. Whenever anyone loses the game, they say the thing that beat them is imba imba imba and needs to be nerfed.
I don't really get what you mean by suggesting BW is imba is heretical. BW was imbalanced, however these imbalances were overcome by smarter unit design and stronger mechanical focus.
Imba in the sense of "Protoss is bullshit psi storm is autowin".
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
What the hell does this sentence even mean?
You say that having to select every building one at a time (tedious bullshit that you're good at) makes the game better, while having to split your army (tedious bullshit that you're bad at) makes the game worse. I'd like to hear your reasoning on that.
Anyway to address what I think you are trying to say. I said, in BW if you have more bases, it becomes harder to manage because of Single Building Selection and telling workers to mine. This mechanic does not exist in SC2. Did I ever advocate that SC2 needed this? No. I am simply stating that SC2 does not have a base management mechanic similar to this, and macro mechanics fall far short in mitigating this issue.
As for unit control. Yes SC2's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented flocking AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.
1. "Yes BW's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented pathing AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.". People compare the Reaver to the Colo, which is a good comparison to make the point with (Though the reaver itself is unmicro-able. You need a shuttle with it). But otherwise there's not a lot of difference. If you don't want your army clumped up, don't bind the entire army to one control group.
2. What exactly are you advocating?
SC2's UI is bullshit because blizz thought it would be a good idea to put buttons fucking everywhere so players could click on them and screw up their micro. That's actually some serious bullshit right there.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
What the hell? are you stoned? I am not even going to answer this.
It's not a complex point, bro. There's no argument in favor of SBS except BW fanboyism and a desire to make the game "harder" in the stupidest goddamn way possible.
So what does my argument have to do with the OP? Well many of the mechanics mentioned have brought the lower and higher level players closer together. Causing the top positions to be more volatile.
It's because every time someone wins a game, TL declares him a fucking Bonjwa and when he loses they rave about how SC2 is terrible.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
Yeah see, I don't really understand this point. What are you trying to say? The point is the nerfs to psi storm were due to a bunch of gold and lower level leaguers (the majority) complaining about it. However if psi storm were not smart-cast they would still deal 112 damage today, because less people would have complained about it.
See that bolded part? That's the part I disagree with. Whenever anyone loses the game, they say the thing that beat them is imba imba imba and needs to be nerfed.
I don't really get what you mean by suggesting BW is imba is heretical. BW was imbalanced, however these imbalances were overcome by smarter unit design and stronger mechanical focus.
Imba in the sense of "Protoss is bullshit psi storm is autowin".
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
What the hell does this sentence even mean?
You say that having to select every building one at a time (tedious bullshit that you're good at) makes the game better, while having to split your army (tedious bullshit that you're bad at) makes the game worse. I'd like to hear your reasoning on that.
Anyway to address what I think you are trying to say. I said, in BW if you have more bases, it becomes harder to manage because of Single Building Selection and telling workers to mine. This mechanic does not exist in SC2. Did I ever advocate that SC2 needed this? No. I am simply stating that SC2 does not have a base management mechanic similar to this, and macro mechanics fall far short in mitigating this issue.
As for unit control. Yes SC2's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented flocking AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.
1. "Yes BW's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented pathing AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.". People compare the Reaver to the Colo, which is a good comparison to make the point with (Though the reaver itself is unmicro-able. You need a shuttle with it). But otherwise there's not a lot of difference. If you don't want your army clumped up, don't bind the entire army to one control group.
SC2's UI is bullshit because blizz thought it would be a good idea to put buttons fucking everywhere so players could click on them and screw up their micro. That's actually some serious bullshit right there.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
What the hell? are you stoned? I am not even going to answer this.
It's not a complex point, bro. There's no argument in favor of SBS except BW fanboyism and a desire to make the game "harder" in the stupidest goddamn way possible.
So what does my argument have to do with the OP? Well many of the mechanics mentioned have brought the lower and higher level players closer together. Causing the top positions to be more volatile.
It's because every time someone wins a game, TL declares him a fucking Bonjwa and when he loses they rave about how SC2 is terrible.
1. Less people would lose games to psi-storms and at the upper levels, people complain less, you really only need to look at the the BNet forums to see what I mean.
2. What?
3. a) They "fixed" bad pathing with even worse pathing. SC2 pathing should have been implemented like DoW/CoH where the units don't clump together but still can navigate themselves around the map easily.
Now your saying if I don't want my units to clump up don't bind to one ctrl group. I could use 9 ctrl groups and 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a BW style and they would still clump up. If you don't want your units to stuff around in BW learn to control them properly? Honestly moving units in BW wasn't hard at all.
3. b) See this is the problem with arguments that involves someone who knows about BW and someone who doesn't. Snow managed to kill 40 hydras with a reaver and no shuttle. Shuttle-less reaver micro exists, and its very similar to colossi micro. However why is it that shuttle-less reaver micro is so fun to watch in comparison to colossi micro. Well Ill leave that up to you to decide.
4. Sorry but the ctrl-group assignment button at the bottom of the screen has caused tonnes of people trouble (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121170). There still isn't a toggle to disable it. I only realised a month ago you could disable alerts on the side as well, if you click on them, the camera will slowly move you across the map, causing you to lose around 5 seconds of activity.
5. There's argument in favor of SBS that makes multi-base management and macro a fundamental aspect of starcraft. Some of the most famous starcraft players, iloveoov, Flash are renown for their macro ability.
Just like in any sport, once you learn it, it can be incredibly fun to do.
this game needs less harvesters needed per expansions, more expansions per game(maybe cost of expansion lowered, time build lowered), tier 1 units should be only units without somekind of skill so in end game the better players will have to control their units somewhat invidually removing this a-move deathball play all together and obviously balanced properly afterwards. theres my ideas and maybe add some objects to the map which would deny sitting at base way too long.
more expansions and less harvesters = macro becomes harder, drops become more useful, micro will be more needed, more locations to attack --> multitasking needed even more. you cant just sit at your base at one location hoping for best you need map control and scouting more etc etc
making the game harder by putting boring stuff like removing some of comfortable game mechanics feels like retarded tbh.
sc2 should be almost even combination of micro+macro and currently it's more weighted towards easy macroing and almost non existend micro. I'm sure the game will improve alot with the next couple of expansions.
It's honestly a lot of things put together that I think even with time will not be changed, unless Blizzard does something. There's just a lot of broken things.
The maps are generally terrible and promote cheese/rushes
Unit counters are too hard, and promote seeing the same units every game
Units like the Colossus are absolutely dull, stupid, and have no skill-cap, in comparison to something awesome like the Reaver
Clumping crap into one ball and then raping your opponent with little to no micro involved (mostly protoss)
Huge micro disparities between the races (Zerg have to micro their units really well, Protoss mostly just bind everything in 1 group and pop Forcefields with their "deathball")
Like a poster above said, Starcraft 2 was made for the masses, which means appealing to casual gamers, which leads to an easier-to-play game. Of course, they may try to balance it for high level play, but that doesn't change the fact that the basics are broken and badly implemented. Honestly they would have to scrap and remake the whole game if they truly want it to be a respected e-sport like BW, where you enjoyed large maps with mostly standard FE builds, which would lead to epic 200/200 army games with 4+ expansions, and tons of strategy instead of just 4 gates, raven all ins, deathballs raping zerg, terrans 2 raxing, etc etc etc.
On March 20 2011 02:44 Scila wrote: It's honestly a lot of things put together that I think even with time will not be changed, unless Blizzard does something. There's just a lot of broken things.
The maps are generally terrible and promote cheese/rushes
Unit counters are too hard, and promote seeing the same units every game
Units like the Colossus are absolutely dull, stupid, and have no skill-cap, in comparison to something awesome like the Reaver
Clumping crap into one ball and then raping your opponent with little to no micro involved (mostly protoss)
Huge micro disparities between the races (Zerg have to micro their units really well, Protoss mostly just bind everything in 1 group and pop Forcefields with their "deathball")
Like a poster above said, Starcraft 2 was made for the masses, which means appealing to casual gamers, which leads to an easier-to-play game. Of course, they may try to balance it for high level play, but that doesn't change the fact that the basics are broken and badly implemented. Honestly they would have to scrap and remake the whole game if they truly want it to be a respected e-sport like BW, where you enjoyed large maps with mostly standard FE builds, which would lead to epic 200/200 army games with 4+ expansions, and tons of strategy instead of just 4 gates, raven all ins, deathballs raping zerg, terrans 2 raxing, etc etc etc.
I've seen loads of great fast expand/macro games in this season of the GSL. Seems like you're selectively picking games instead of looking at the whole picture. Since the new maps were introduced we've seen longer, more interesting games.
You're post is full of hyperbole making things look worse than they are. Protoss use alot of micro in most matchups, it's not all a-move. SC2 doesn't need to be crapped and remade to be a viable e-sport game. With more great maps and (hopefully) some new microable units/abilities in the expansions i see a bright future for SC2.
I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
This game need a huge expansion, with all those tourney it can really become good, but by now matches are just boring :/ I mean just look at this match (the best Tasteless casting ever imo) + Show Spoiler +
And imagine what it could become with the big fan base of SC2
Like a poster above said, Starcraft 2 was made for the masses, which means appealing to casual gamers, which leads to an easier-to-play game.
They've done a terrible job of appealing to the masses with SC2. The game is basically a slightly-modern, prettier version of a 12-year-old game. Every review for the game says that. That's not exactly appealing to the masses. Most of "the masses" who buy the game play the campaign, maybe ladder for a bit, and quit. Others do some rushing on the ladder, because that's all they're able to do in the game. Because the game requires too much skill, ability, and attention for them to do anything better.
If Blizzard had truly wanted to appeal to "casual gamers," they'd have taken out the SC1-style resourcing in favor of something like resource nodes and such, the way many modern RTS games work. They'd have put in formations and such. They'd have automated all aspects of macro and micro, so you need only about 50 APM to play the game at a high level.
Blizzard didn't put in MBS and rally-mining to appeal to casual gamers. They did it because the mechanics make sense for any game, period. What Blizzard failed to do was to completely fill in the macro hole left behind by their addition. This failure had nothing to do to appealing to "casual gamers."
Well if you look for consistency look at MC. I mean i don´t really like him, but you can say his loss in the ro16 GSL jan. was just being unprepared vs mech, then you can say he has been consistent since his GSL 3 win. Every Match he goes in, he is the total favorite. He loses almost never, and can easily kill opponents like july in 10-11 minute games without any problem. And then you have to see: Its not the fault of the game when players play bad. Squirtle played perfectly in GSTL feb. vs MVP thats true, but since then he was so much weaker. You cant say he is supossed to be code S and kill everyone. Also MVP had his problems against toss, than he had bad luck meet 3 tosses in a row and got eliminated. It was his fault for not training TvP enough. FD is one of those guys whose were good when the game was new ( like Maka or so) MKP´s old style just got outfought and then he struggeld to find something new. Vs Sen you have to count that he played a different style every game. With pure Bio he lost, With hellion marine and Mech he won. We don´t know what could have been if he had played mech in the World vs Korea match. So you see, players lose cause they are don´t train enough, get outfought or have to fight against a new unexpected style. And yeah, we don´t really have the player with all the things you need to be a bonjwa or something: Perfect timings, Macro, Micro, game sense... There are some with one or two of these skills but none with every. I think NaDa could do it (fanboy) but he doesnot train enough. (Sorry for my english obviously not my mother tongue)
EPT
