[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 17

On April 16 2011 19:50 nitdkim wrote:

the definition of "space" is pretty different when you're talking about sentries controlling space with forcefield and controlling space in a map with units in BW. It's not like u have 2 sentries spaced out throughout the map to prevent movement... space control in BW was like a solid invisible wall you don't cross unless you plan to break that wall.

On April 16 2011 19:55 ArvickHero wrote:
I don't see how Vikings/Banshees could be more interesting than Wraiths. Wraiths were fragile units that could potentially do huge amounts of damage with proper control, but a single slip-up in micro would mean the end of the Terran, along with the fact that you needed at least 6 Wraiths to be effective in harass.. Basically an extremely microable unit you can harass with and is very risky to use.

Vikings have a huge range and can land, but they're not very microable.. and Banshees don't require much investment to be useful, and can't really be microed very well either.. why do some ppl think the Wraith is less interesting? :s if anything the Banshee should've been designed like the Wraith :<

On April 16 2011 19:51 intrigue wrote:

i'm not quite sure his post warrants such a sarcastic reply. you're the one that said people are just stating their opinions, no? are the things he said not true? he even says the game "obviously [isn't] an awful game", he's more on your "side" than not.

as for my view on all this, i agree with the OP totally. i think sc2 is a good game by any standard - you'd need some pretty damned compelling arguments to disagree. what kills me though is seeing sc2's potential to be an AMAZING game. sc2 is incredibly popular now, and it was based off of brood war. obviously many of elements of the sc franchise have strong appeal to newcomers. brood war players and fans know that there can be more though, stuff that people unfamiliar with a large-scale RTS may not know about but will come to love if it is introduced.

it's improbable that every single one of us is bitter, biased, and butthurt idiots with no ability to gauge what makes games fun - please do mull over some of the things being said, even if you think they sound ridiculous.

On April 16 2011 19:52 3xiLe wrote:


You're emphasising that they may be nostalgic... but like he said, over what? at the moment, the last SWL finals hosted roughly from what i saw out of the stadium during the games 3 times as many people as the GSL. even MorroW and Doa were spotted in the crowd, with Doa casting sections of the GSL which IS trying to replace BW, supposed to be compettiting.

On April 16 2011 09:49 Rodiel2 wrote:
SC BW is and will still be the best game

On April 16 2011 20:05 3xiLe wrote:


Fights i find in BW are more concentrated and because units are less "bland" per se, they were more specialized as apposed to "1a". If you were to take a 1a unit in BW and face them against another one, the fight would probably end a lot faster than in SC2, but what i find about BW is that the units were mostly more specialized. This would lead to longer battles. for example, TvZ. Scourge hits vessel, swarm pushes back MM, tanks come standstill, vessel irridiates defiler, plague hits units, so on so on, ultras, lings, etc

On April 16 2011 20:12 dkby wrote:
Frankly OP is so subjective from the very beginning it's almost a caricature. How can you compare a new fresh game with another one which has years of balancing and one expansion ?

Your "Can you name 6 things going on during this battle?" comparisons are meaningless because there's only t1 units on the sc2 picture (except for the medivacs). Your BW picture would have shown marines firebats and medics, all right, but yea there would be less things going on...

I totally disagree with your critics about the easier gameplay. Playing BW effectively required to have a ridiculous high apm just to do BORING things : to select each building to make a unit is boring, to select casters one by one to cast a spell is a pita, unit selection limited to 12 units was a huge pita, and path finding was very frustrating. To make the game easier is a good thing, it's just stupid when you select 2 HT and they both cast storm when you press the T button just once. If I buy a game it's to have fun playing it, not to be amazed by gosus whose 400 apm are use mainly to compensate the terrible interface.

I agree with some points though, about maps controls and spellcasters abilty mainly. But again, you talk a lot about lurkers, which appeared in the expansion. Kinda biased point of view.

Give SC2 some time.

On April 16 2011 09:44 Golgotha wrote:
wow. epic post. can you please get this man on the blizzard dev team.

On April 16 2011 19:59 YyapSsap wrote:
Ive always felt something was missing from SC2 and couldn't summarize the deep span of thoughts that would go through my head as I experience the following in MANY games:
-My army would die in a 200/200 battle in 5~10 secs even if I had the better map control or economy the entire game and this hence resulted in me not being able to win anymore. Players that had the better deathball (the one dealing most dps) would be awarded more so than players with good gameflow(운영) skills. So basically SC2 either is a game of build order coin toss, or deathball vs deathball wins. Theres no forcing the opposing player to respond/react like this or that, while in return you do this and that so that he falls into that trap etc like a game of chess or I dare say SC BW.

-Static defenses in SC2 is non existent. Forces players to always be on the move with their deathballs to defend which meant immobile builds like Mech play was severly handicapped and nothing offsetted this disadvantage. If for some "weird" reason units are left behind to defend, your deathball will be weaker and hence theres 99% chance you will lose in the one and only battle that will decide the game. Plus if those small amount of units+static defense was attacked by a deathball, it might delay the deathball push by maybe 1~2 seconds? not enough time to buy those precious time to other counterattack or defend unlike I dare say again, SC BW.

-Positioning/sim city rarely meant much as the deathball WILL hulksmash through any choked defense or what not without much plan or setup (1A) and only in rare situations would this be false due to the mistakes caused by the 1Aing player..

And what the OP had described is exactly what I was trying to summarize. Mahnini exactly pinpoints what I think is some of the things in SC2 that if changed could really make the games more epic.

Mechanics and the interface cannot change and in IMO is perfectly fine not only because to me its a vast improvement over the BW interface which I thought was crude and poor probably due hardware/software limitation at the time when the game was being designed. However we cant ignore the fact that "progamers" overcame such crude interfaces and it soon became one of the factors that made spectating BW just so much more epic.

Logically speaking, one would be led to believe that easier interface would lead to more strategical/chess/tug of war like games because now, more of the time can be spent on focusing on the strategic elements of the game instead of having to wrestle with the crude interface. However instead we are seeing, very short games and every game seems just like the one played not so long ago. Unlike memorable games in BW, SC2 doesnt have "those" moments. One of the reasons IMO is the newly introduced one dimensional units that are suppose to replace its BW counterparts.

Lets talk about the colossus. This unit is supposedly the reaver placement. However why aren't we having similiar moments where we are gasping for air due to the tension/thrill/excitement due to the thought of a single scarab destroying half the workers? Because the new replacement unit is one dimensional. Once it attacks, its it. The reaver although being OP on paper, had its downside. It was slow, VERY vulnerable if not supported, rate of fire was also slow and scarabs might not hit any target at all. Pairing it with a shuttle made it a deadly combo that could deal a ton of damage with the right decision making and micro management, but this doesn't mean it was unstoppable. It was a paper plane carrying around a paper cannon that could be shut down with ease. Thats where the thrill was coming from, because pulling it off was one difficult task.

Now looking back at the colossus, it has huge hitpoints, its attacks never miss, it can see highground, it does not collide with other units, it has ridiculous range and pairing it with a warp prism would cripple the unit instead of buffing it. I cant for the life me think of any situations where it would give me "WOOOOaaaah" moment. Instead its just a powerful 1A unit with no micro-ability (no need actually) that the more you have, the more badass your deathball is.. And most units in SC2 is like this, hence result in one dimensional battles and this ultimately decides the game winner.

Dragoons with stim.. dragoons with higher hit point/reduced range.. dragoons that blink.. I dont know about you guys but this makes me sick.

Ive recently watched the winners league finals, and was wondering to myself "wow.. I can still feel the excitement/thrill/adrenaline when watching SCBW even if its 11 years old?!" Each game has a story of its own. A drama thats unfolded as the game progresses. A tug of war, a struggle between players. I still follow BW to this day and stopped following SC2 period. It just seems that In SC2 its all about whos got the biggest deathball. Sure cutesy things happens once inawhile, but eventually it all comes back to the deathball syndrome.