I read the title of the OP and I understand the sentiment.
I agree with the OP about the more intimate level of player-unit interaction required in BW to an extent, but only in so much as the interface, mapping, and AI, in design and practice, warranted it.
A few things, apologies if you've already mentioned them but I've read the thread and felt I could add something:
I've attempted to follow a logical flow between the analysis of seperate aspects of the discussion
As this is about what's missing from SC2 rather than a comparison with BW it feels prudent to mention that BW would never have had to undergo the comparison, BW is the phenomenon and community that almost produced and has now popularised the idea of competative gaming as a serious pursuit and in doing so embodies the idea of "what Starcraft is all about". If E-sports is truly something that people want to see expand. Its consumer base must also expand to provide incentives for people to Sponsor events and such. This means more viewers and more players, which is what SC2 brings. Many of these people, are casual gamers or people who've played the original or BW or are first time RTS players. The others are the Progamers and hardcore enthusiasts from prevoius incarnations or from other games who've switched. Consequently it seems to me that it had to happen this way, in the sense of:
having fewer units ( to begin with ) smaller maps, easily defendable points of exit/entrance to a base, the intense symmetry of many of the maps ( making it easier to anticipate your enemy's base layout, )
It allows newcomers to get to grips with a competative E-sport, and allows a Newcomer to play someone of higher skill, and compete, as there are handicap features built into most maps: there is a pre-defined ramp entrance which effectively mitigates v.early rushes and is useful through the early-mid game if used correctly. This focus on the base allows newer players to concentrate on macro, which is emphasised over spatial control and postioning, It allows progamers really get to grips with the level of unit-control that is Possible in SC2 - something which a few people have mentioned in general, and which I agree on is that even top players such as MC, White.ra, Idra and many more miss mplenty of opportunities to spend their excess apm in creative and decisive ways. I feel that the in built limitations/symmetry and size of maps at the moment, and the as yet ( In comp to BW ) unattained, "intimate" knowledge of the units and maps, ( even the improved cohesion and speed of a clump of units due to the improved mapping ) explains much of the tendency of balling units. The centre ground is inevitably the focus of a symmetrical map, and in this limited space, the mobility of a ball of units is just fine.
-As a side, there are features of units that I've never seen in competative games or seen referenced that units are capable of in SC2, and even the well-known techniques already developed by players, are not always used or effective.
It seems the majority of what SC2 is missing by comparison, is seasoned, long-term, competetive specialists; People who've spent their lives, handling and manipulating the mechanics to the extent where the physical and statistical naunces of every unit are known and ingrained. And even at that stage of development, change is still possible. A few weeks ago INControl mentioned a specific BW technique ( relating to mutas possibly? ) that wasn't discovered for nearly 10 years. That level of experience allows you to employ any number of manouvres, across the map and I feel this is something that will come naturally over time. Once HoTS is released, people who compete there, will have to at least have bought WoL and for the most part will have played it to a greater or lesser extent, therefore the in-built equalising factors I've mentioned in WoL need not be as present, if at all in the expansions. By then, there will be an amazing catalogue of strategies from WoL the dimensions of which can only be increased with the addition of new units and maps. There will be a new generation of gamers, who didn't just give up on SC2 because there was so much to learn about how the game was played online and could at least to a small extent put up a fight, win a few games, and enjoy a satisfying visual treat, whether winning or losing!
A couple of last things: a few people mentioned how easy certain abilities or spells etc were to use and that they required, little skill to use them effectively As balling is a consequence of the features I've mentioned, this tendency will decrease when the units are more completely understood, when the units increase in diversity, and when maps begin to take larger less symmetrical forms. The total effectiveness of any one easy to cast spell - say AoE spells like, Psi- Fung- Emp- will necessarily decrease as armies become more spread out and more unpredictable.
1) SC2 is very good, and has the potential to be an immersive and thoroughly engaging RTS with diverse strategies and rewarding micromanagemt.
2)Rather than being missing I feel/hope that these features are merely being temporarily marginalised for the sake of initiating a wider audience into an already pre-existing highly dedicated community, to whom even new features of the game make intuitive sense in terms of BW.
3) In order to allow the potential of the game to manifest itself, the four main equalising/limiting features mentioned above have to be addressed.
There are many other points I want to address directly from other posters about features they felt limited the game ( FF, Zerg positional defence etc, Role of the roach) but those kind of points are best answered with one's own experimentation rather than on paper in a clinical vacuum.
We'd all like to add to the game or make changes we feel would benefit it hugely, I've my own ideas about these as well, and would be happy to discuss them in the appropriate forum.
I love sc2, there is just one thing I do not like; how difficult it is to pull off a comeback. Maybe it's because people are still inefficient and very imperfect, but for a lot of games it is just way to easy to see who is going to win. Whether it's build order losses and just death ball fights, for a lot of games there just isn't tension on who is going to win.
That said, this doesn't have to be. There are epic games and amazingly close games, and making some things like scouting better and maybe altering mechanics (for example making gateways produce units faster than warpgates) would make the game better.
A fundamental design flaw. In ZvP how do you prepare for an upcoming battle? ZvT? PvT? PvZ? TvP? Chances are the answer everyone gives to that question is exactly the same. You minimize or maximize surface area, what else can you do? Units in this game don't require setup time. The function of nearly every unit in this game is simple and one dimensional, reduce or improve DPS. One of the few exceptions to this is the siege tank, I'll touch more on this later.
I will say that the answer for most people (starting with myself) is not the same and is not simply to minimize or maximize surface area. As a general statement I will say that players in any matchup will first Identify the problem and use critical thinking to think of a solution. This may include a zergling runby in response to scouting a Terran moving out his army, or delaying lair tech for earlier banelings against a 3 rax timing push. A lot of the critical decisions are made much before the actual engagement. The engagement and outcome is often result of these previous critical decisions rather than poor execution.
Saying that the function of nearly every unit simple and one dimensional is quite hard to justify. Yes, most units in the game have a primary function to do damage and therefore is simple. This however is not a units only function and definitely not one dimensional. Take the zergling for example in a mirror match of ZvZ. At the start of the game the zerglings first function is generally to scout. After the zergling scouts it is used to either attack or defend and win or stay alive. This is where the zerglings function is quite simple. However as the game progresses into the standard Roach Infestor game, zerglings gain a new function on top of scouting, which is to A. Deter expansions, B. Slow creep spread, and C. wait for runby opportunities. Aside from this, Simple funcions are A GOOD THING. Its the interaction of these many different units that makes very diverse, intricate gameplay.
Do you know what game flow is? We used to have a term that was used abundantly on this board that described a pivotal aspect of competitive play. Controlling the game flow is, in essence, controlling the pace of the game. In ZvT, if a Terran wanted to push out and kill your third, you exercised your map control to slow down the Terran push by slowly moving back lurkers as they got in tank range. Conversely, if you wanted to force an engagement as Terran you unsiege and attack towards another position or drop harass his bases, forcing the Zerg to completely reposition. When you're controlling the flow, the only things that can happen are the things you allow to happen. If he wants a big fight, you drop everywhere. If he wants a macro game, you attack him constantly.
I agree with OP on this, but Starcraft 2 is not any different in concept, only execution and therefore does not lack "game flow." (If this statement was meant to imply that SC2 did lack it in the first place. Im not entirely sure.)
The importance of map control. Map control isn't really how much of the map you are literally covering with buildings and units, rather it is how much area can you freely move without contest. Put simply, just because you have a unit in a certain area doesn't mean you have map control of that area, it's that fact that you can actively deny movement in that area that makes it map control. It seems to me like all these ideas build upon one another and that if you want to be able to control the flow of the game you need to have map control, and if you want to have map control you need units that can do more than add DPS. You need units with map prescence. BW had units like lurkers, siege tanks, and vultures that could very effectively control sections of the map. Can you name one other than the siege tank that SC2 has?
I agree that map control is quite important. Your clarification of map control also seems accurate for the most part except the part about needing units with map presence. There are more than one way to obtain map control in SCBW or SC2. The first would simply be a contain. When you simply have your army outside his base you know that he cant just send a probe past you unscathed, so you have map control. Map control is also the quantity and quality of information received from scouting. Mutalisks are a great unit at gaining this valuable information due to the fact that they fly, are fast, and to extent can fight other units and attack structures.
Positioning and setup time. I don't really know how to explain positioning, but thankfully there are units that personify the idea of positioning perfectly: siege tanks and lurkers. If you've ever been a victim of a lurker or siege tank contain you know how powerful these units are when they are properly setup. 5 properly setup siege tanks can mow down twice the amount of dragoons and 5 properly positioned lurkers could deny an infinite amount of marines from touching your expansion.
Yes. Positioning is equally important in Starcraft 2.
Terrans have to worry about siege tank positioning, Turret placement to properly protect workers and tech structures, and their overall sim city, making sure that marines are spread against banelings, not leaving your siege tanks undefended by having marines nearby to protect against muta.
Protoss have to have proper sim city, and when they engage are usually more effective in a ball. So there positioning is there "Death ball" without letting colossus get out of place.
Zerg has to position crawlers so that they cover the most area, block the ramp with two queens against banelings or make sure that your army isn't out of place so no runby to the main happens. When engaging a terran army with zerg its extremely effective to use flanks, so positioning units to flank is key.
In this game of Morrow vs MC at the DreamHack Invitational Stockholm + Show Spoiler +
You can clearly see the constant positioning of armies. Morrow retreats his army till in position to make an offensive engagement (positioning is not limited to defense). Morrow capitalizes on positioning using the map to his advantage.
Player-unit interaction. One of the only sources of player-unit interaction in SC2 are spellcasters because they are one of the only units that require actual micromanagement to use properly. The problem with the spellcasters, though, is that they themselves don't promote a player involved response. Think about the sentry and the spells it has, if a guardian shield or forcefield goes up, as the opposing player what are you doing differently? Chances are you aren't doing anything or you are in full retreat. What about the infestor? What's your response to the infestor besides maximizing surface area or neutralizing it before the battle? When a fungal goes off there is literally nothing you can do to avoid further damage, you just sit there thinking, "well this kinda sucks, I need to spread more".
I do not agree with this statement at all. The "player-unit interaction" I will argue in Starcraft 2 is not only present, but equal if not better than BW. Any player from any race at almost any skill level has a sense of micromanagement (which is what I am assuming that "player-unit interaction" is). Take ZvZ for example. In an all-in situation where both players have banelings and are both fighting for their lives to crush the other player, it is extremely faced paced micro that requires extreme execution where one miss click can cost the game.
Take plague vs fungal growth. If all my front marines plagued, I can run them behind healthier units and still use them to some degree. If I get my front marines fungal'd I get to sit there watching them die stuck in place and there's almost nothing I can do to avoid a second fungal other than running headlong into more fungals. More importantly, plague required a large amount of time to research and you could only cast one per defiler before you had to consume, and many times dark swarm was a better choice. On the other hand, fungal is the primary infestor spell and is smartcasted.
That's one of the primary functions of fungal growth, to limit mobility. The actual function of an infestor is similar to a defiler but in no way worse or better, its just different. Last I checked SC2 and BW are different games. Things that are different with Starcraft 2 yet maintain the feel of Brood War is one of the things that appeals most to me about the game.
Even staple units were replaced by less interesting, less interactive versions of themselves. Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra? There's just no contest.
I find the units in Starcraft 2 quite interesting and equally interactive. It's quite hard to say that there is no contest. Some of the units I miss in the game like the reaver, but others received a vast improvement like the stalker over dragoon. Trying to tell dragoons to move from point A to point B was as painful as nails on a chalkboard.
The fact of the matter is in any situation in either BW or SC2 there is dominant player-unit interaction. It is one of the key elements of Starcraft.
Mechanics were more than a skill gap. Having a mechanics requirement was what made things in BW impressive. Saying an RTS player only wins because he's faster is like saying a boxer only wins because he's stronger and not a better fighter. It's just stupid.
The high mechanical requirement enabled extremely skilled players to use their units in ways no one ever could. It made large engagements an event in itself because of how difficult it is to maintain your composure when you are controlling 200/200 armies with a 12 unit limit. Huge army fights were a means to and end, and not and end within themselves. The final battle wasn't a formality to end the game that you knew ended minutes ago, it was a direct contest between players. It was the moment when both players go, "I don't care how big your army is, I have mine and I'm going to kill you with it". Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
The sweet irony is that, if multiple unit selection was implemented in BW, battles would still be more interesting and impressive than SC2 battles simply because of unit dynamics. You can't just 1a BW units and have then attack at full effectiveness.
Micro in BW is impressive but tedious. This tedious aspect gives the illusion that better players play BW and to an extent is true due to the time that people have had to master the game. This in no way makes BW a better or superior game to SC2. Micro in SC2 is also equally impressive and only limited by the players. SC2 also brings a more dominant aspect that sets the best from the average, which is "game sense." Game sense is a players ability to absorb information and make decisive decisions to gain an edge in the game. This game sense that players have plays a more important roll in starcraft 2 than BW. Which is why there are a lot more foreigners in the Pro scene of starcraft 2 than BW. BW relied on the tedious refined mechanics a lot more.
What does any of this have to do with spectators? It has EVERYTHING to do with the spectators, one of the main reason that BW was such an intense game is because it provided the necessary build-up and tension. Staple damage dealers like the lurker and siege tank made you hold your every time an attack happened. It's like riding a roller coaster, the slow trip up to the first drop is what makes that first drop so exhilarating. When lurkers are burrowing, mines are being laid, or tanks are sieging the audience is collectively holding its breath. When a protoss or zerg attacks prepares into a heavily fortified tank line, that moment, before the engagement, is just as important, if not more important, than the engagement itself, from a viewer perspective. It's like watching the closing seconds of a tied basketball game, time is out but the ball is in the air. The entire context of the situation gives the action importance, it's not action for action's sake. When I watch an SC2 TvP battle, or ZvP battle there's absolutely no tension. There's TONS of things, exploding, catching on fire, or dying in other sparkly ways, but I don't really care because the conclusion is nearly forgone, I'm just waiting for the AI to make a fancy show out of it.
On the other hand when Savior preparing to dive into oov's gigantic tank line I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "He's not going for it is he? OMG HE'S GOING FOR IT! AAAAAAAAA(<--when the army starts advancing)". When the first dark swarms go off and lurkers burrow "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA", when the spines go off and the first row of tanks disappears, "OOOOOOOMMMMGGGGGGGGGG". I can continue watch his progression laid out clearly on my screen. The zerg pushing into terran territory, how far is he going to get? Commentators and fangirls screaming, tank after tank exploding, zergling after zergling splattering all over the map, but Savior keeps marching till there are no tanks left, "HOLY SHIT. I guess that's why they call him Maestro".
I really liked this response by Jibba and agree.
I think the biggest tension builder that's lacking in SC2 is in the casting. There's no loud, magnificent Kim Carrier style orations (besides TB) and the public's insistence on seeing the Production tab destroys a lot of the tension that was in BW. You can't flip to a base and see 4 carriers anymore, because everyone saw the Fleet Beacon go down. Honestly, I think changing these two things would have a profound effect on everyone's excitement. I know everyone says they want the production tab open and full information all the time, but there would be a lot more drama if they weren't.
And that's a particular expertise that has to be learned by casters. There are times to show different tabs, times to show players' perspectives and time to unveil the big surprises. I know I've ranted about players in most of this post, but the casters need to improve as well if you really want games to be as big and exciting as they can be.
Closing comments: I really liked this post, but didn't like the lack of support to many of OP's claims. I feel that OP gave WAY too much credit to BW and didn't justify things that OP felt were wrong.
On April 16 2011 12:44 Authweight wrote: I feel like SC2 TvT is actually at that level right now. Tanks are obviously very positional, marines are very microable, and viking positioning is pretty critical too. ZvT is there to some degree, the drama of marine vs baneling micro is very awesome to watch, as well as muta micro to pick off tanks, workers, buildings, etc.
i agree with you. tvt is by far my favorite matchup, watching mkp vs mvp really resembles bw tvp. tvz is up there too.
A question, do you think that matchups involving Protoss end up boring and eventually contribute to the boring aspects of the SC2?
I kinda feel like SC2 needs to be slowed down a tad. Watching speedlings is cool cause they are so frigging fast but i think micro could be alot more fun if the game speed wasn't so high. Somethimes i have to rewatch vods cause it's hard to see what really happened cause it all happens so quickly in SC2 compared to BW.
I dont have anything to add really, I just wanted to show my support for the OP's idea and vision. I was not really a brood player. I watched it a lot but that was it. When sc2 rolled in and I jumped in with great passion, I wanted to do all these cool things with map control and map presence because I envisioned strategy games like that. After more than a year of playing and getting into masters so I suppose I sort of know what I'm doing, It is with sadness that I realize that its not about these concepts of old but about new play style specific to our new game. One thing I do enjoy though is map presence with creep in a way in zvt. It forces the terran to be careful when he comes on it as you have vision of course, but also added speed which will make his micro harder if you rush him down. This in a way gives him some sort of danger zone and he has to commit to his attack like someone who would try to break a contain, just in a different way if you guys see what I mean.
But eh, with 2 more addons and probably new units, we still have time to figure cool stuff out! cheers to that!
From a spectator's (and as someone who played both games quite a lot) point of view, there is a huge difference in watching sc2 compared to brood war. For me, the main difference is one of getting the feeling of "holy shit how is he doing that" while watching brood war, compared to the "eh that was pretty good I guess, but I could do nearly as good myself" in a lot of sc2 matches. The game is more wide and shallow, so to speak, than deep and narrow from a skill perspective. Obviously there are exceptions, but when multiple casters have the ability to completely prevent micro, battles are almost always over in seconds (usually ending the game), and the biggest multitasking i've seen yet is a zerg player dropping two locations at once while 1aing the front of a protoss base, watching sc2 is just kinda underwhelming because there aren't a ton of things that differentiate a pro and an average master's player from a spectator's point of view beyond things like game sense, timings, and multitasking, which are difficult to observe casually and often aren't particularly entertaining beyond "oh look he got turrets up just in time for the dt rush."
God I love the entirety of the OP so much. I've had similar thoughts ever since the beta, and every point you make I nodded my head to. I've had a similar list sitting in a notepad document for a long time now on how I think SC2 could obtain some of that "magic" in both playing an spectating, but have been afraid to post it because it might come off as another pointless "what I would change about SC2" lists haha.
I really like the points you bring up about big battles, especially. When big battles happen in SC2 there's really nothing exciting happening, there's no micro, spells or setup beforehand to marvel at. The only thing you can "wow" at is stuff like "oh no X player is losing units faster than Y player!" and completely basic target firing on important units. Then the battle ends in a predictable fashion, and that's the end of it.
On April 16 2011 16:12 karpo wrote: I kinda feel like SC2 needs to be slowed down a tad. Watching speedlings is cool cause they are so frigging fast but i think micro could be alot more fun if the game speed wasn't so high. Somethimes i have to rewatch vods cause it's hard to see what really happened cause it all happens so quickly in SC2 compared to BW.
I think making the maps larger will in effect slow units down. -having to cover a larger amount of space would lead to the increased seperation of different units in a group, as a consequence of their speed differentials being more greatly pronounced over longer distances. Meaning -Mass advance over the map will have to go at the slowest unit's pace, or risk leaving slower moving elite units at an unhelpful distance behind.
On April 16 2011 15:38 benjammin wrote: not to derail any discussions here but split-map 200/200 snorefests from BW are probably not an example of something that's missing. one of the most exciting parts of sc2 for me is that each race has viable unit compositions that are mobile and can keep constant action going. also, lower mechanics don't create a lowered skill ceiling by any means, and if anything emphasize the importance of other aspects of the game (which, in turn, has made foreigners more competitive on the highest level). call me crazy, but i don't miss watching robot b-team koreans smash the best foreigners.
Except that such a 200/200 TvT snorefest has constant skirmishes going on, repositioning etcetera, it is not that exciting but the alternative is SC2 where you have giant battles and no hardly any skirmishes, there was an image somewhere which described it perfectly, the map is divided in I am here and you are there, in BW it was all over the place.
there's a lot of selective memory going on here by both of us, but neither of these are absolute. i can find plenty of mindnumbingly passive BW games the same way you can find them in SC2, but there's no predisposition in either game to either style (watch some of select's games where he drops constantly, watch some of canata's tvts if you want to torture yourself)
Guys, just leave it, it's no use making that kind of comparison. First of all, the pace and design of the games are entirely different. Not as differnt as BW to WC3 but enough to not make them so similiar, that one could easily compare two sets of abilities. Then comes the fact, that BW has 10 more years of refinement and the expansion of which two are still missing for SC2. The only valid argument imo is the fact that it's actually harder to control single units in a fight in SC2 because they simply clump up more as their collision size is about their model size, they just get too close to simply select one. This is mitigated by smartcast but still interferes with perfect micro. Now here are some ideas to show what could happen once people advance in mechanics to the point where the macro and decision making doesn't decide most games:
Blink Stalkers: racing across the map, engaging and disengaging, blinking to spread damage while retaining firepower (wave blinking) even in bigger fights FFs: not simply splitting armies but preventing flanks, defensive play with single sentries (Ever seen somebody defent an expo at a starting position with ONE sentry? It's impressive.) Void Rays: Pre-charging, keeping the charge, splitting their attacking first to get charge and then focus down with charge (we're seeing this already to a certain degree).
MVs: infight pickups and drops, just like some players deal with FFs but working more like blink. Tankdrops, underused as hell. Ghosts(!) Snipe/EMP vs Storm was interesting and fun to watch while it was dominant. Blue flame hellions, microd to fire horizontally into a line of Zealots
Muta-balling with mass moveclick, not as hard to do as in BW but still fun once you get to it (I know range is lower). Burrowed banelings, as a way to delay pushes, just like FG was used for a while.
I could go on and on with things I've seen in only half a year as a commentator. It's just not included in standard play yet.
Map control will be more about knowledge than in BW but I think it's good to have creep tumors and sensor towers around.
With BW it somehow feels like you're playing handicapped because of so many limitations like the 12 unit limit or the casting system. I hated it in BW, kept hating it in WC3. Now here's a game that's not about juggling 5 groups of units with retarded pathing. Sure it takes skill to overcome obstacles but I don't want to fight the game, I want to fight my opponent. When both struggle with getting better at playing against the game's mechanics something is very wrong. Although it's not 100% the same I still like to bring up chess. It's about you and your opponent, the rules are so much simpler than in SC, yet nobody would ever say it's just not demanding enough. There's always room to improve and with so many more variables and possibilities to act and control in a game like SC compared to chess, how can anybody say skill would be limited by the game design? Or more or less limited than in another game with a similiar amount of options?
If you micro'd every unit perfectly you would be better (anybody seen the 100 Zergling vs 20 Tanks Video?) and that's the end of the story. So ffs, please stay away from BW was so much BETTER AT or BETTER BECAUSE. It's simply not. Differnt game, different skills. Not less or more.
btw, commentators usually can't keep up with the speed at which stuff happens in SC2 compared to BW or WC3, that's probably more of a reason why they don't get super excited about every good split, move, blink etc. and that's ok imo. I tried keeping up with micro moves but I talked faster than most rappers and the audience mentioned it became hard to follow leaned back in a chair...so no, commentators adapting won't change that. It's a tiny bit more shallow than in BW to commentate, I'll give you that.
very little amount of ppl cut the map with tanks while doing drops like mvp in sc2...
PvT iNfeRnaL WCG 2010 ( Oct 1 )
dropships ( these moved at 1.101 x worker speed which they now move at 0.8896 x worker speed ) / factory units just constantly harassing the toss ( expanded first ) something like this doesn't even exist in sc2...such nice gameplay the speed allowed them to do harass like this as they could actually get away from enemy units
the casters don't yell enough like the korean casters either to make the games seem a bit more interesting
They could even cancel the plague via restoration spell ( single target though and not AoE ) if they were quick
units like the lurker could force the game to go longer by making the other player get a science vessel or use scans, giving the other player more time to prepare
medics could even block zerglings from attacking the rines ( they had 60 hp and 1 base armor ) with no attack and low priority ( forces the zerg to micro the zerglings a bit more to do some damage and it gave the terrans the ability to do some tricks with the medic )
On April 16 2011 15:38 benjammin wrote: not to derail any discussions here but split-map 200/200 snorefests from BW are probably not an example of something that's missing. one of the most exciting parts of sc2 for me is that each race has viable unit compositions that are mobile and can keep constant action going. also, lower mechanics don't create a lowered skill ceiling by any means, and if anything emphasize the importance of other aspects of the game (which, in turn, has made foreigners more competitive on the highest level). call me crazy, but i don't miss watching robot b-team koreans smash the best foreigners.
You are really contradicting yourself aren't you ? first you said you are not derailing and than you hop on to smack talk about bw 200/200 f**king snorefest have you ever watch a msl or osl i bet you don't because you just love to assume that bw is a macro game and boring because you can't even reach D rank in bw even in iccup ? seriously aren't you trolling now but than again back on to the topic overall I do realised that not only sc2 lacks map control or unit that has actual potential to do such . In my opinion the graphic it self in sc2 hinders it spectator enjoyment especially seeing blob vs blob on the big screen is really not that very exciting but that again i hope sc2 actually gets better in hots or in lov expansion till than goodluck.
i've been here longer than you by almost 2 years and nothing you said in any part of this post makes sense. as for map control--what is anyone even trying to say? what is the argument? that sc2 lacks lurkers? that terran is more of a dynamic race now and not as dependent on turtling? what about the viability of unit immobility is good for the viewer?
On April 16 2011 16:12 karpo wrote: I kinda feel like SC2 needs to be slowed down a tad. Watching speedlings is cool cause they are so frigging fast but i think micro could be alot more fun if the game speed wasn't so high. Somethimes i have to rewatch vods cause it's hard to see what really happened cause it all happens so quickly in SC2 compared to BW.
SC2 is definitely a huge amount faster than BW. Just go and play an SC2BW custom map and you can see exactly how much faster it is, because it's a LOT. The small unit collision size, in addition to the incredble speed that everything moves and attacks at, I think is a big part of what this thread is addressing as a whole.
So many things have been done wrong with SC2 and yet it still remains interesting because of it's strong foundations.
In my opinion the biggest problem is that the units have become too strong, marauder, colossus, voidray, ,roach, marine compared to SC1 units. Everything got buffed to promote easy play and make the game more accessible to everyone, hence the volatile state of the game.
A feeling of melancholy came through me as I read the OP, since all the issues he addresses are spot on; and because I know none of them will be fixed in HOTS as everything said here goes 100% against the direction blizzard wants the game to go. Hope dies last yes, but at this point some things are crystal clear.
And one last thing, lets' face the fact that 70%-80% (or maybe more) of the SC2 audience haven't watched professional BW. They don't know what it means watching Nal_RA performing corsair reaver perfectly and screaming alone in your computer like some 15 year old korean fangirl. SC2 is fine for them and that is another reason SC2 is considered a success and there's not many things to fix. The developers feel the same, as Dustin Browder said himself "HOTS will be equally good". They don't even need to fix anything, only make sure they do a good job again.
The Star wars thread from the general forum is pretty similar to this in a sad way. Newer generation doesn't care about how deep the characters were in the original starwars, because the light-saber battles and special effects are so cool in the new ones.
It's all up to Blizzard at this point and thread like this, not matter how real and objective they are, just don't make any difference. SC2 is a commercial success and all this is like meaningless blabbering from romantic idealists who should just shut the fuck up and buy the expansion(s).
I am new to the (competitive) RTS scene since SC2 so my knowledge on brood war isn't great. With that in mind I think that I can see things that other people may overlook because of my "fresh eyes". I think there are some important things that you overlooked.
On map control: you brought up vultures. I believe that burrowed banelings are basically the equivalent to these. Also broodlords, while late are positional units and make for some interesting interactions, not only because of their siege range, but also because of their pathblocking attack. Don't forget the thors and vikings and their ability to control air space with their range!
On positioning and set up time: I believe that you overlooked the importance of creep and of re positionable spines and spores. These make for very interesting dynamics. Vikings also require a "set up time" which has punished me a lot for trying to harass with them :p
On micromanagement/engagements: I believe this part was greatly oversimplified. You were saying a lot about battles being 1a, but I feel like there are many things that aren't like that. Marine interaction with ling/bling is one of my favorites. It is very interesting because marines want to clump against the lings, but spread against the banelings. I also believe that fungal growth and force fields are more interesting and dynamic than people make them out to be. When part of your army is fungal'd then you have a choice to engage there or retreat and lose those units. Force fields can be used for more than just trapping and ranging units, they can also be used to shorten your opponents arc. Even when your opponent neural parasites some of your units it make you use more actions to try to focus the infestor while still microing your other units.
On April 16 2011 16:40 kasumimi wrote: The Star wars thread from the general forum is pretty similar to this in a sad way. Newer generation doesn't care about how deep the characters were in the original starwars, because the light-saber battles and special effects are so cool in the new ones.
It's all up to Blizzard at this point and thread like this, not matter how real and objective they are, just don't make any difference. SC2 is a commercial success and all this is like meaningless blabbering from romantic idealists who should just shut the fuck up and buy the expansion(s).
Oh my god the part you said about Star Wars totally reminded me of a blog I made awhile back on a similar issue, with comparing the new SW movies and SC2. It's funny how coincidental that is. (here's the link btw, just a short read: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=158523 )
Also your last part is so sadly true. No matter what people suggest or talk about, Blizzard has a set plan with their game and will probably never do anything involving any user suggestions, especially anything this big.
Great write-up OP. I never played BW myself but even as a spectator it's obvious it had more games within the game so to speak. This has probably already been brought up but I think other than design (or rather all the design flaws which the competitive BW scene grew around) the major factor as far as the greatness of BW goes is the amount of time it's been around and played at a high level. We don't know how SC2 will look a couple of years down the road. But still, since SC2 is still being actively supported, plus with the two expansions down the road I guess it is important to remind everyone exactly how deep BW managed to become. Hopefully Blizzard are paying attention.
well, to be fair if SC2 was as good as SC1 in terms of mechanics and micro being heavily rewarded then all the koreans would dominate again and it'd probably be less popular in the foreign scene sadly
EPT
No matter what people suggest or talk about, Blizzard has a set plan with their game and will probably never do anything involving any user suggestions, especially anything this big.
