|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2011 17:29 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 16:55 suejak wrote:Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. Except there's some universal truths behind his statements. You take them for opinions, I take them for the current state of SC2 micro-management. Show nested quote + would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). Except... they're not. Maybe the lurker and siegetank because they can hold ground, but the reaver is so unique because it's like a dagger. It can strike sharp and hard, but it requires precise micro to keep it alive and to know where to strike. It's soooooooo different from lurker and siegetank which are all based on positioning. I think that last part discredits you a bit. Show nested quote +I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. It's great that you prefer banelings, but the problem is that they still can't hold ground. If you lose a ling/muta army to rine/tank but somehow manage to morph 30 banelings behind that, you're still screwed. You can't force the terran to inch forward bit by bit like you could with lurkers, because its either you can kill them or you can't. Show nested quote +I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. Whoopdedoo, wraiths require much more micro than vikings. Fact of the matter. Sure, banshees can scoot and shoot, like a valkyrie in BW, but that's nothing to the BW-muta-esque control attainable by wraiths. Show nested quote +I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. But once again, you can't control the thor. There's no interaction that makes or breaks the unit. You can't micro the thor to get <- this Face it, if a thor's in a disadvantage, it's most likely dead unless your army can scare away theirs. Otherwise, if you have a thor out being chased by any unit, it's dead. Show nested quote +The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. I personally think the sair is cooler too, but without scourge, it just doesn't require the same micro sairs did to maintain their efficiency and stay alive. Show nested quote + The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. But the dragoon was more interactive. You can't control immortals like the way you could dance dragoons. I mean, even with the horrible dragoon AI, if you were good, you could create beauty out of dragoon dancing. You could kill hordes of lings, which usually counter dragoons, by dancing them. In SC2? Not really. Although, I say this is unfair because stalkers are much cooler cuz of blink and their speed. ^_^ Immortals though, are boring to micro. but BW mutas were easily much more agile and responsive. Show nested quote +I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. And slower, and dumber, and less useful, and you don't have to storm dodge, you just let them attack behind roaches until they get killed by colossi. Show nested quote +So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play.
There isn't a contest in what Mahini's trying to say for the unit interaction part, which is that SC2 requires much less attention and micro to your units than BW. It's not that the SC2 units aren't fun. It's that they're not... really YOUR units. It's more like the AI's controlling them than you are.
I just wanted to thank you for responding to that post in the way that I wanted to (calm and rational) as opposed to what I was about to do (insult-laden rage)
|
actually i think the head developers for BW are already long gone and the makers of SC2 are a little... i dunno how to say it. Possible that they just don't know what made BW such a great game.
|
I think a lot of what made starcraft 1 cool were just simple oversights that weren't planned by blizzard at all but just happened. That or everything was HARD to do (ala the OP). with sc2 its like they planned the game out wayy too much and made it easier for people to play (including me and i'd say 100% of the people saying the OP is wrong) and now its like what is left to be discovered?
|
I wish Starcraft 2 wasn't so dark. In the first 2 screenshots in the OP, the Brood War shot is much, much brighter and more colourful, and comparatively it's harder to see what colour team units are on in Starcraft 2. You've seen a big Speedling v Speedling fight on creep, right? Absolutely no idea what's going on until the fight's over.
|
On April 16 2011 16:50 Angra wrote: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.
Hehehe, I'd like to reply in detail but it's gonna be completely off-topic 
Nice blog by the way. While it's funny how we make the same connection 6 months apart and a few tens of thousands kilometers away, it makes perfect sense because the connection is pretty clear.
|
On April 16 2011 17:36 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
"Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra?"
Could you go more in depth for each of these comparisons, and put it in the OP? (It may have been discussed before but I haven't read the entire thread). It would be nice for those who barely played Broodwar, like me.
I've already read a lot about colossus vs reaver, and I don't think baneling vs lurker is a justified comparison because they're so different (unless banelings were intended to replace the role of lurkers, but either way, lurkers were discussed a lot already), but the rest seem interesting. What made the wraith, golaith, corsair, dragoon, and old versions of muta and hydra so much better?
Here's one example.
|
On April 16 2011 17:35 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. I would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play. if you notice i give a criteria with which i judge these units and it's player interaction. And you're just wrong that this generalizes to every unit. You're also wrong that guardian shield and forcefield do not encourage a player response. There's plenty of sentry sniping and tactical retreats (not just full-on retreats coz you lost). Is this the same as a dark swarm? Actually, kind of. Your position is rendered unfavourable, so you pull back and reposition. Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia.
Most viking-banshee play is hardly more micro-intensive intensive than the hydra/scourge/muta-wraith dance that occurs every time players open two-port against zerg.
|
On April 16 2011 17:59 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 17:36 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
"Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra?"
Could you go more in depth for each of these comparisons, and put it in the OP? (It may have been discussed before but I haven't read the entire thread). It would be nice for those who barely played Broodwar, like me.
I've already read a lot about colossus vs reaver, and I don't think baneling vs lurker is a justified comparison because they're so different (unless banelings were intended to replace the role of lurkers, but either way, lurkers were discussed a lot already), but the rest seem interesting. What made the wraith, golaith, corsair, dragoon, and old versions of muta and hydra so much better? Here's one example.
I really can't see the difference between that and the muta micro July had against Nada on Metalopolis in the GSL.
|
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 17:29 ghrur wrote:On April 16 2011 16:55 suejak wrote:Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. Except there's some universal truths behind his statements. You take them for opinions, I take them for the current state of SC2 micro-management. Well, "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" is not a universal truth, nor is it backed by universal truths. It's just not. Show nested quote +[quoteI would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). Except... they're not. Maybe the lurker and siegetank because they can hold ground, but the reaver is so unique because it's like a dagger. It can strike sharp and hard, but it requires precise micro to keep it alive and to know where to strike. It's soooooooo different from lurker and siegetank which are all based on positioning. I think that last part discredits you a bit.
Except... they are. Again, this is just incredibly biased by the colour of the shades you got on. The reaver is different in subtle, trivial ways -- it's true. But they are all one-shot, ranged massive damage (not DPS, my bad) units, and that is kind of a boring unit idea. IMO. Which is all any of this is.
Show nested quote +I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. It's great that you prefer banelings, but the problem is that they still can't hold ground. If you lose a ling/muta army to rine/tank but somehow manage to morph 30 banelings behind that, you're still screwed. You can't force the terran to inch forward bit by bit like you could with lurkers, because its either you can kill them or you can't.
I think we agree on this. But we don't agree that the lurker is more interesting.
Show nested quote +I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. Whoopdedoo, wraiths require much more micro than vikings. Fact of the matter. Sure, banshees can scoot and shoot, like a valkyrie in BW, but that's nothing to the BW-muta-esque control attainable by wraiths.
Whoopdedoo, so? Wraiths are super boring; there's nothing else to say. I don't care if they have BW-muta-esque control; they are not as dynamic and interesting within the game as banshees and vikings (and I'm not just talking about control here).
Show nested quote +I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. But once again, you can't control the thor. There's no interaction that makes or breaks the unit. You can't micro the thor to get http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKL1asT4XU <- this Face it, if a thor's in a disadvantage, it's most likely dead unless your army can scare away theirs. Otherwise, if you have a thor out being chased by any unit, it's dead.
Well, control is crucial in both games, but of course the appeal of BW is that all of the units require more careful micro, which can pay off beautifully. The disagreement is whether microing a bunch of goliaths to turn a battle is more interesting than the strategic weight of a thor. It's about hand spasms versus strategic thinking.
Show nested quote +The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. I personally think the sair is cooler too, but without scourge, it just doesn't require the same micro sairs did to maintain their efficiency and stay alive. [quoteThe dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2.
But the dragoon was more interactive. You can't control immortals like the way you could dance dragoons. I mean, even with the horrible dragoon AI, if you were good, you could create beauty out of dragoon dancing. You could kill hordes of lings, which usually counter dragoons, by dancing them. In SC2? Not really. Although, I say this is unfair because stalkers are much cooler cuz of blink and their speed. ^_^ Immortals though, are boring to micro.[/quote]
We agree.
but BW mutas were easily much more agile and responsive.
We agree. But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with SC2 mutas. It's a strategic appeal v a hand-spam appeal.
Show nested quote +I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. And slower, and dumber, and less useful, and you don't have to storm dodge, you just let them attack behind roaches until they get killed by colossi.
And "dumber" huh? lol. They are just not the all-purpose spam unit they were in BW. They are situational and you have to do more to maximize their efficiency (yes, PLANNING like creep spread and overlord creep dropping or overlord dropping or whatever).
Show nested quote +So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play.
There isn't a contest in what Mahini's trying to say for the unit interaction part, which is that SC2 requires much less attention and micro to your units than BW. It's not that the SC2 units aren't fun. It's that they're not... really YOUR units. It's more like the AI's controlling them than you are.
There isn't a contest if the point is that BW requires more hand spam. Which is something I think no one would debate. That is a large part of the appeal of BW, in fact -- the hand spam.
The question is to what extent this means the SC2 units are "less interesting". And I would say that, in many cases, BW has nothing on the interesting units of SC2. The SC2 units do more -- even if you have to hand-spam less to do them. The SC2 units have huge strategic and tactical weight and depth -- even if you don't have to tell every templar to storm individually. Which is more interesting? I'll leave that to the reader.
|
On April 16 2011 18:02 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 17:35 suejak wrote:
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.
Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. I would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play. if you notice i give a criteria with which i judge these units and it's player interaction. And you're just wrong that this generalizes to every unit. You're also wrong that guardian shield and forcefield do not encourage a player response. There's plenty of sentry sniping and tactical retreats (not just full-on retreats coz you lost). Is this the same as a dark swarm? Actually, kind of. Your position is rendered unfavourable, so you pull back and reposition. Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia. If you can show me any Starcraft II replay that has any viking-banshee micro more intensive than the hydra/scourge/wraith micro that occurs when players open two-port against zerg, I will actually eat my hat.
I suppose I misunderstood that by "interactive," he meant, "requires more APM to use well."
If that's the claim being made here, I agree completely and will go back to preferring SC2.
|
The part I found most agreeable in the op was where he brought up how so many times in SC2 the battle is decided before the first shot is fired and too often I see 1 early battle decide the outcome of the game, with micro making little difference.
Usually, once a player gets behind he just slowly dies. He can't take a base to catch up because there is no way to efficiently defend against a superior army. The only reason to take one is on the chance you'll get lucky and it wont be scouted. Whether or not you expand in sc2 is usually decided by whether or not your army can hold the opponents army in a straight fight.
I think there are many problems with unit counters too. Too many units in sc2 get dominated by units that are a lower tech level and much cheaper. Some units just get countered by too many things and don't counter enough things themselves. Other units counter, or are good against, way too many things. Micro isn't a factor, certain units will just smash other units and there isn't anything that can be done micro wise to change the outcome.
Then there are units that are becoming, seemingly, more and more useless as the game gets figured out like carriers, motherships, archons. The reason we don't see these units in high level play is probably because carriers and motherships get crushed by vikings, which are a standard unit in pvt because vikings also counter colossus and void rays. Micro is not going to change this, the vikings can be micro'd to stay out of range of their target but their is no micro the carriers, void rays, mothership or colossi can do to become more effective vs vikings. They can attack or retreat. Beyond this, when an opponent masses certain units it creates a situation where a whole tech tree's become almost useless. It's too easy to force your opponent into needing a specific unit. It is not uncommon for a 1 hour BW game to see almost every unit in a race's arsenal get used, it's common in sc2 games that games go on for an hour with both players never even using whole tech paths.
How many times have you seen TvP decided by whether or not the protoss got enough colossi out? Micro isn't going to change the outcome, the way 2 more colossi will, but it should. Micro in sc2 is what the op said, spellcasting made easy, pulling away injured units, and target firing. There are only a few examples in the whole game of useful micro this doesn't apply to, and even fewer situations where units can micro to counter the opponents micro. What can banlings do to counteract marine splitting? What can void rays do against vikings? What can zealots or stalkers do against concussive? Die, that's what.
|
the the big blob vs another big blob i personaly never got to play sc1 like the vids you should was doing 3v3 4v4 fastest but i def see your point there was never a battles to end the game was just a battles for territory in sc1, for pvt raders are op anyway so thats why tanks never get picked....idk i kida wish they would just get sc1 and make it look like sc2 with like a small tweak or 2 nut ehg
|
So the OP is obviously not especially logical -- at least the overall point made is not made logically. It's difficult to respond effectively to something like this. There is something to BW that I want more of in SC2, and I think the OP gets at that pretty well, but I'm not sure he's really found a generalizable source of that feeling. And I think his post makes it clear that a lot of his feeling about the game, individually, is really only what he feels. There is nothing to prove or argue, really; just something to write about and say, "I feel like this."
I think this really hits at the core of the issue and is worth restating. I think there is a lot more going on here than just "SC2 is missing concrete quantitative things that BW had that made it great." In fact I think it is a lot more based on feelings than it is facts. And that isn't to delegitimize the issue, but rather bring it more into a proper light. It's definitely a tragic thing from the point of view of a spectator.
|
On April 16 2011 18:02 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 17:59 zawk9 wrote:On April 16 2011 17:36 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
"Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra?"
Could you go more in depth for each of these comparisons, and put it in the OP? (It may have been discussed before but I haven't read the entire thread). It would be nice for those who barely played Broodwar, like me.
I've already read a lot about colossus vs reaver, and I don't think baneling vs lurker is a justified comparison because they're so different (unless banelings were intended to replace the role of lurkers, but either way, lurkers were discussed a lot already), but the rest seem interesting. What made the wraith, golaith, corsair, dragoon, and old versions of muta and hydra so much better? Here's one example. I really can't see the difference between that and the muta micro July had against Nada on Metalopolis in the GSL.
This probably isn't actually a very good example. This is amazing because Jaedong was actually controlling 2 groups of mutas in 2 different locations, but he couldn't control them as effectively so in terms of mechanics it may not be the best example.
Muta micro is a little gimmicky in SC2. You can never really get good DPS and mobility by clumping mutas in SC2, also mutas behave differently. In BW you must be moving towards the enemy to move-shot (unless you click patrol on the stack), where as in SC2 mutas will spin around and shoot the other way.
However in BW the effectiveness of your mutalisks increase greatly when done this way, where-as in SC2 its debatable.
Also you said July vs Nada, these are 2 BW players. You see really cool muta micro in many TvZ games, where-as it is rarely done in SC2, and therefore every game is very different, because it all comes down to control at that phase of the game, but in an engaging way, rather than just backing off until you get a bigger army. BW forces play that involves constant flow of aggression, rather than turtle to 1 big battle.
|
On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol. Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 17:29 ghrur wrote:On April 16 2011 16:55 suejak wrote:Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. Except there's some universal truths behind his statements. You take them for opinions, I take them for the current state of SC2 micro-management. Well, "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" is not a universal truth, nor is it backed by universal truths. It's just not. [quoteI would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). Except... they're not. Maybe the lurker and siegetank because they can hold ground, but the reaver is so unique because it's like a dagger. It can strike sharp and hard, but it requires precise micro to keep it alive and to know where to strike. It's soooooooo different from lurker and siegetank which are all based on positioning. I think that last part discredits you a bit. Except... they are. Again, this is just incredibly biased by the colour of the shades you got on. The reaver is different in subtle, trivial ways -- it's true. But they are all one-shot, ranged massive damage (not DPS, my bad) units, and that is kind of a boring unit idea. IMO. Which is all any of this is.
The way that tanks/lurkers and reavers are used are utterly and completely different. Nobody gives a shit if the unit design itself is uninspired, they care about the gameplay that results from it.
Show nested quote +I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. Whoopdedoo, wraiths require much more micro than vikings. Fact of the matter. Sure, banshees can scoot and shoot, like a valkyrie in BW, but that's nothing to the BW-muta-esque control attainable by wraiths. Whoopdedoo, so? Wraiths are super boring; there's nothing else to say. I don't care if they have BW-muta-esque control; they are not as dynamic and interesting within the game as banshees and vikings (and I'm not just talking about control here). Show nested quote +I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. But once again, you can't control the thor. There's no interaction that makes or breaks the unit. You can't micro the thor to get http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKL1asT4XU <- this Face it, if a thor's in a disadvantage, it's most likely dead unless your army can scare away theirs. Otherwise, if you have a thor out being chased by any unit, it's dead. Well, control is crucial in both games, but of course the appeal of BW is that all of the units require more careful micro, which can pay off beautifully. The disagreement is whether microing a bunch of goliaths to turn a battle is more interesting than the strategic weight of a thor. It's about hand spasms versus strategic thinking.
You probably meant to say, "hand spasms and strategic thinking versus strategic thinking," unless you think that the fact that goliaths can be microed means that there is no strategic element to them.
Show nested quote +The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. I personally think the sair is cooler too, but without scourge, it just doesn't require the same micro sairs did to maintain their efficiency and stay alive. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. But the dragoon was more interactive. You can't control immortals like the way you could dance dragoons. I mean, even with the horrible dragoon AI, if you were good, you could create beauty out of dragoon dancing. You could kill hordes of lings, which usually counter dragoons, by dancing them. In SC2? Not really. Although, I say this is unfair because stalkers are much cooler cuz of blink and their speed. ^_^ Immortals though, are boring to micro. We agree. Show nested quote +I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. but BW mutas were easily much more agile and responsive. We agree. But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with SC2 mutas. It's a strategic appeal v a hand-spam appeal. Show nested quote +I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. And slower, and dumber, and less useful, and you don't have to storm dodge, you just let them attack behind roaches until they get killed by colossi. And "dumber" huh? lol. They are just not the all-purpose spam unit they were in BW. They are situational and you have to do more to maximize their efficiency (yes, PLANNING like creep spread and overlord creep dropping or overlord dropping or whatever). Show nested quote +So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play.
There isn't a contest in what Mahini's trying to say for the unit interaction part, which is that SC2 requires much less attention and micro to your units than BW. It's not that the SC2 units aren't fun. It's that they're not... really YOUR units. It's more like the AI's controlling them than you are. There isn't a contest if the point is that BW requires more hand spam. Which is something I think no one would debate. That is a large part of the appeal of BW, in fact -- the hand spam. The question is to what extent this means the SC2 units are "less interesting". And I would say that, in many cases, BW has nothing on the interesting units of SC2. The SC2 units do more -- even if you have to hand-spam less to do them. The SC2 units have huge strategic and tactical weight and depth -- even if you don't have to tell every templar to storm individually. Which is more interesting? I'll leave that to the reader.
SC1 units also have HUGE STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL WEIGHT AND DEPTH, so since that's a plus for both sides, we're stuck comparing what's left.
In fact, ninety percent of the point manhini is making in the OP is about how SC1 units have more of this HUGE STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL WEIGHT AND DEPTH than in SC2, and you've apparently unilaterally decided that no, in fact, SC1 units are just hand spam units with far less strategic depth than anything in SC2.
|
On April 16 2011 18:09 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:02 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 17:35 suejak wrote:
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.
Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. I would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play. if you notice i give a criteria with which i judge these units and it's player interaction. And you're just wrong that this generalizes to every unit. You're also wrong that guardian shield and forcefield do not encourage a player response. There's plenty of sentry sniping and tactical retreats (not just full-on retreats coz you lost). Is this the same as a dark swarm? Actually, kind of. Your position is rendered unfavourable, so you pull back and reposition. Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia. If you can show me any Starcraft II replay that has any viking-banshee micro more intensive than the hydra/scourge/wraith micro that occurs when players open two-port against zerg, I will actually eat my hat. I suppose I misunderstood that by "interactive," he meant, "requires more APM to use well." If that's the claim being made here, I agree completely and will go back to preferring SC2.
Good thing that's something idiotic I didn't say and you put into my mouth.
|
On April 16 2011 18:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:09 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:02 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 17:35 suejak wrote:
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.
Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. I would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play. if you notice i give a criteria with which i judge these units and it's player interaction. And you're just wrong that this generalizes to every unit. You're also wrong that guardian shield and forcefield do not encourage a player response. There's plenty of sentry sniping and tactical retreats (not just full-on retreats coz you lost). Is this the same as a dark swarm? Actually, kind of. Your position is rendered unfavourable, so you pull back and reposition. Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia. If you can show me any Starcraft II replay that has any viking-banshee micro more intensive than the hydra/scourge/wraith micro that occurs when players open two-port against zerg, I will actually eat my hat. I suppose I misunderstood that by "interactive," he meant, "requires more APM to use well." If that's the claim being made here, I agree completely and will go back to preferring SC2. Good thing that's something idiotic I didn't say and you put into my mouth.
Well, you're talking about a very specific situation -- wraith v hydra/scourge -- which is just a lot of clicking. It's cool, I agree -- but's it not enough to make the wraith, as a unit, more interesting than the banshee and the viking, as units. The OP said the units were simply more interesting. I completely disagree. What more is there to discuss?
|
On April 16 2011 18:12 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:02 karpo wrote:On April 16 2011 17:59 zawk9 wrote:On April 16 2011 17:36 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
"Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra?"
Could you go more in depth for each of these comparisons, and put it in the OP? (It may have been discussed before but I haven't read the entire thread). It would be nice for those who barely played Broodwar, like me.
I've already read a lot about colossus vs reaver, and I don't think baneling vs lurker is a justified comparison because they're so different (unless banelings were intended to replace the role of lurkers, but either way, lurkers were discussed a lot already), but the rest seem interesting. What made the wraith, golaith, corsair, dragoon, and old versions of muta and hydra so much better? Here's one example. I really can't see the difference between that and the muta micro July had against Nada on Metalopolis in the GSL. This probably isn't actually a very good example. This is amazing because Jaedong was actually controlling 2 groups of mutas in 2 different locations, but he couldn't control them as effectively so in terms of mechanics it may not be the best example. Muta micro is a little gimmicky in SC2. You can never really get good DPS and mobility by clumping mutas in SC2, also mutas behave differently. In BW you must be moving towards the enemy to move-shot (unless you click patrol on the stack), where as in SC2 mutas will spin around and shoot the other way. However in BW the effectiveness of your mutalisks increase greatly when done this way, where-as in SC2 its debatable. Also you said July vs Nada, these are 2 BW players. You see really cool muta micro in many TvZ games, where-as it is rarely done in SC2, and therefore every game is very different, because it all comes down to control at that phase of the game, but in an engaging way, rather than just backing off until you get a bigger army. BW forces play that involves constant flow of aggression, rather than turtle to 1 big battle.
Muta micro rarely done in SC2 TvZ? I don't know man. I've seen huge amount of muta harass micro in ZvT.
|
On April 16 2011 18:18 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 18:09 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:02 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 17:35 suejak wrote:
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.
Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. I would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play. if you notice i give a criteria with which i judge these units and it's player interaction. And you're just wrong that this generalizes to every unit. You're also wrong that guardian shield and forcefield do not encourage a player response. There's plenty of sentry sniping and tactical retreats (not just full-on retreats coz you lost). Is this the same as a dark swarm? Actually, kind of. Your position is rendered unfavourable, so you pull back and reposition. Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia. If you can show me any Starcraft II replay that has any viking-banshee micro more intensive than the hydra/scourge/wraith micro that occurs when players open two-port against zerg, I will actually eat my hat. I suppose I misunderstood that by "interactive," he meant, "requires more APM to use well." If that's the claim being made here, I agree completely and will go back to preferring SC2. Good thing that's something idiotic I didn't say and you put into my mouth. Well, you're talking about a very specific situation -- wraith v hydra/scourge -- which is just a lot of clicking. It's cool, I agree -- but's it not enough to make the wraith, as a unit, more interesting than the banshee and the viking, as units. The OP said the units were simply more interesting. I completely disagree. What more is there to discuss?
There is generally more positional micro and active harassing occurring in the game when people open wraiths than when people open viking-banshee. In terms of "interesting interaction" this is what is meant, whereas your judgment on what constitutes an interesting unit seems to be dependent mainly on what what special abilities or features it has.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 16 2011 18:18 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 18:09 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:02 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 17:35 suejak wrote:
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.
Comments like this in the OP are farrr too prevalent. Fortunately, it is absurdly easy to respond to something like this. And this makes the inherent flaw of the OP clear: he's simply talking about how he feels, as an individual. This leads him to make untrue or bizarre statements about the presence or lack of tension, or that he is just "waiting for the AI to make a pretty show of foregone conclusions" when he watches SC2. I would agree that the reaver is a cool unit -- and if I HAD to choose for some bizarre reason, I would go with the reaver (although siege tank-like massive one-shot DPS units are a little boring -- the reaver, the lurker, and the siege tank are a little too similar). I like banelings more than lurkers, although I think it could be cool if zergs could more effectively control space. This isn't to say that they can't do it with the current units; that has yet to be established. But yeah, you probably need another unit? But I prefer banelings. I think it's viking/banshee v wraith. I actually prefer the former two. Wraiths are lame, to be honest. I also like thors a lot more than goliaths, although goliaths are ok. The sheer might of thors, their size and strength and the concussive cannon thing, are all so much more fun. The phoenix is sooo much better than the corsair. From moving shot to lift-up -- it's just cooler. The dragoon has cool shoot-and-fire mechanics in BW -- it's cooler than the immortal. But I like the immortal in SC2. I prefer BW mutas, but I still like them in SC2. I prefer SC2 hydras -- they are much less spammable and must be used more situationally, but they're fun. So, really, IS there no contest? Or is there no contest for... just you? You really have to think about these things honestly. I might even say I prefer watching BW, but I love SC2 more. And I will never ever play BW again. It's annoying to play. if you notice i give a criteria with which i judge these units and it's player interaction. And you're just wrong that this generalizes to every unit. You're also wrong that guardian shield and forcefield do not encourage a player response. There's plenty of sentry sniping and tactical retreats (not just full-on retreats coz you lost). Is this the same as a dark swarm? Actually, kind of. Your position is rendered unfavourable, so you pull back and reposition. Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia. If you can show me any Starcraft II replay that has any viking-banshee micro more intensive than the hydra/scourge/wraith micro that occurs when players open two-port against zerg, I will actually eat my hat. I suppose I misunderstood that by "interactive," he meant, "requires more APM to use well." If that's the claim being made here, I agree completely and will go back to preferring SC2. Good thing that's something idiotic I didn't say and you put into my mouth. Well, you're talking about a very specific situation -- wraith v hydra/scourge -- which is just a lot of clicking. It's cool, I agree -- but's it not enough to make the wraith, as a unit, more interesting than the banshee and the viking, as units. The OP said the units were simply more interesting. I completely disagree. What more is there to discuss?
Englighten us how you feel Viking and Banshees are more dynamic then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
