If you ask anyone who has seen him play from the beginning they would tell you the same fucking thing. There is no argument and your opinion is baseless. The facts are in his play and other obligations. They are all there. It isn't arguable.
Geoff the "Incontrol" freak Robinson did make a few comments regarding NaDa's play in the NASL a few days ago when he was up against dde. Geoff praised NaDa for his spectacular mechanics (keeping his minerals below 200-300). He showed great macro, but hell he made so many mistakes with his micro and unit control he could have lost that game at least 5 times. -_- You can bark and play the 'opinion' card all you want, but the fact of the matter is he isn't even close to playing like his former self. You know what they called him before Genius Terran? TORNADO Terran because the guy used to be everywhere at once fucking your shit up. (EDIT: Fun fact, before players started coining the Protoss Death Ball in SC2 it was used to describe Terran in BW). NaDa started it. You look at the minimap and his units movement look like a hurricane. He is the grand master of SK Terran. The fucker perfected it.
With that said, this thread is about improving SC2 game play. That is what you should take away from it, so take off your beer goggles and stop trying to turn it into something different.
The fact you trying to attack players who have YEARS of experience playing RTS games should make you step back for a second and think about what they have to say.
karpo, the same could be said about Hasuob's Void Rays at the LAN in Italy. Then you got to ask yourself, how do these units effect the game flow and map control?
Well too bad he's not what he used to be. Can you imagine what it would be like if he was still that good now in SC2? Man that would be so much better than the old BW thingy stuff.
Is that any better? Are you happy now?
I don't know how much more obvious of an ass I'll need to be to make people understand that this isn't going anywhere.
Dont realy agree that for the average spectator alot is missing For hard core gamers who did watch broodwar maybe sc2 is less atractive to watch but as a verry casual player who never did watch broodwar i can say that i love watching sc2 matches alot more then i like watching broodwar matches Maybe not only for the quality of the graphics but also because of the gameplay Sc2 seems verry fast paced and is easy to follow Even if you in bronze or dont play the game at all you can get exited about watching it while it seems that to watch and enjoy a broodwar match you do need to have quiet a bit of knowledge There can be such a thing as "to much going on" wich makes it not fun to watch for the casual gamer who cant follow it all annyway
so ya: Love watching sc2 vids and streams way more then i like watching broodwar streams but guess this is personal
On April 16 2011 20:29 YyapSsap wrote: I just dont buy the whole "SC2 some time" arguments either. If it was a completely new game, it might makes sense but it was built upon a foundation called SC:BW. Sequels normally take what was great with the original and add something more to deliver an even greater enjoyable experience.
Sadly, some of the things that made BW so epic and last this long compared to say War3 and any other RTS games combined together is missing completely in SC2. If such formulae worked for the first game, why not use it as the basis of the second?
Its quite laughable at how they were so fixated on so many gimmicky things (remember those preview clips of their units before the game was released?) "Yay our reapers can jump up and down cliffs!?!" to "Look at our colossus micro, going back and forth high ground to low ground while dealing damaghe to the mass zerglings..."
I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit".
Alright, i'll answer one more before bed >.>
Once you've battled and beaten the UI, the game branches off in many directions afterwords, which uses the shitty UI as a foundation for great strategies and abuses the fact, making it very interesting. I mean, these our how strategies developed, sure they werent created to soley abuse the fact, but i think that sure would have had an inspiration for some of the strategies, and for some of the game style (passive, agressive) etc people have
and BW Z production was fine once you got used to it. it actually became easier in some circumstances.
I understand your point. But I'm sure you're aware that in the video game industry nowaday, if the player has to struggle with the UI or the controls, it's considered a very, very important flaw. It became a flaw after the years because people realized that it's generally more fun to play the game than to be challenged by the UI. BW got thru it mainly because there was no competition.
I really, REALLY agree with this point.
Yes, SC2 is being compared to BW. HOWEVER, it is also heavily compared to every other RTS in the market which SC2 is competing with. There are quite a few casual gamers and RTS enthusiasts that initially find SC2 to be unappealing simply because it shared too much with BW. To them, they expected SC2 to be more of an "evolution" that would have many of the "improvements" that a lot of other RTS games had innovated, such as the Generals Powers initially from C&C Generals, the Strategic Zoom from Supreme Commander, and the cover system from Company of Heroes. Of course, SC2 needs none of these things to be a great game, but it's still quite annoying to browse other gaming websites only to find ignorant people who don't like SC2 because marines can't take cover and air strikes and paradrops can't be called from the side of the screen. I used to browse C&C forums quite frequently before TL, and it was irritating to see posts criticizing SC2 for being the exact same as BW. Heck, even Kotaku decided to troll us with an article saying that SC2 was a disappointment because it was too similar to BW. I assume that people expected BW and SC2 to be as different as WC2 and WC3, yet were disappointed that there weren't enough new gimmicks like Heroes and neutral Creeps.
Consequently, the UI of SC2 is being compared with every RTS in the market in addition to BW. As much as we would like limited unit selection, no MBS, and a different, slightly more difficult pathfinding AI, the mainstream gaming media may not be review such features as kindly as we TLers do. Although BW UI would add mechanical difficulty benefiting skill and adding better dynamics for spectators, it is still a cumbersome and in many ways an inferior interface compared to the interfaces of other highly-rated RTS games. In any other game, MBS, auto-mining, and unlimited unit selection would be a blessing and would be considered "better" UI. Why struggle with a 12 unit selection limit in BW when you can be controlling a literally unlimited number of units in C&C? Why baby-sit production facilities when you can auto-queue in the Age of Mythology expansion pack? Of course, too much help from the UI decreases skill gaps too much and harms the e-sports aspect of the game, yet for many of the uninitiated, playing SC2 is not synonymous with being competitive or watching the pro-scene. Present the completely inexperienced casual gamer with the BW and SC2 UIs, and they will most definitely prefer playing with the SC2 UI simply because it is easier, which is exactly what Blizzard intended.
Of course, this puts Blizzard in a really awkward situation. On one hand, they need to sell the game to thousands, perhaps millions of casual gamers who couldn't care less about the e-sports scene and are perfectly happy weekend warriors sitting from Bronze to Plat or even Diamond league. On the other hand, Blizzard needs to create the dynamics and x-factor that made the BW scene such a treat to watch and follow. This in itself is a huge paradox that is difficult to address.
As a result, I don't think the discussion should focus on overall mechanical difficulty. MBS, ball pathfinding, and unlimited unit selection are here to stay. Blizzard tried to please both casuals and BW fans without alienating too much of both groups, and they had arguably succeeded with minimal casualties. Instead, I think the discussion should focus on units and the dynamics and interactions that would make them interesting to watch and use despite the changes to the UI.
Balance patches may be able to discourage counters 1a ball tactics and create more entertaining dynamics from underused units. New maps might force more macro-based, BW-esque play by punishing less mobile 1a ball armies and encouraging smaller engagements and harassment.
However, I think the main solution to the most fundamental spectator issues will come from whatever new units Blizzard will have in their expansion packs. Zerg dynamics can easily change with units that easily replace the Lurker, Defiler, and Scourge in function and watchability. Adding some more micro-intensive alternatives to the Colossus would easily help Protoss matchups. As I said before, creating some powerful yet incredibly difficult-to-use units and spells might be able to aid higher level players without imbalancing the lower levels. Perhaps it would also help to create some more position-dependent, map-control units similar to the Siege Tank.
If Brood War, Lord of Destruction, The Frozen Throne, or even the WoW expansion packs are of any indication, then I think Blizzard will have a satisfying answer to our pleas in HotS or maybe even LotV. Until then, we can only hope that balance patches, new maps, and shifts in the metagame can answer our problems.
TvZ is as hard as BW for Terran IMO. Position is really important and there are lots of things going on just to maximize the effectiveness of your army.
I think part of what contributes to the current state of the game is unit supply in relation towards max supply.
Because your army needs a certain amount of backbone units we simply end up having fewer special units (tanks, ultralisk when we hit maxed (similar to the day9 logic of wanting to have 300 max supply).
Other than that i dont think i can add anything to what has not already been discussed.
It doesn't pertain to the OP then. The comparisons become void.
So, once again I ask you what effect does this unit micro have on map control and game flow? How can a player effectively push the other one back when they have a massive army right knocking right on their doorstep?
I cannot think of many that gives another player pause. This is one of the reasons we see base trades in SC2 so often.
I honestly had to double check the OP to make sure this wasn't just a thread from the same date in 2010 that got bumped. Back then it was common to make a thread that:
1) Points out differences between SC2 and BW 2) Tries to demonstrate that the differences made BW a better game 3) Hints that changing SC2 to be more like BW would make it a better game
This seems to stem from the assumption that BW was somehow the perfect RTS. I don't know how much "magic" BW anyway since it never seemed to take off outside of Korea and was quite rapidly replaced by WC3 when that came out. I watched BW hardcore for like 2 years and most of the awesomeness in it seemed to come from the fact that the players are just so damn good. No other game really has people practicing that much in such an organized environment. The games between foreigners were much less exciting than Proleague or OSL/MSL.
Most of the BW pro teams were established around 2001-2002. It still took 4 years until someone discovered something as simple as muta stacking. I'm sure until that point it was considered fact that mutas just wouldn't keep stacked very well. Right now people are saying the SC2 engine is doesn't allow for any amazing micro tricks but that might not be the case 6 months from now.
You also have to consider how many people in SC2's audience even want it to become like BW. Many of my friends who got into SC2 aren't fans of long games and large macro maps. If you assume most of the people who watched or played BW came to TL, only maybe 10-20% of the SC2 community is from BW. Point being, nobody really knows if copying BW would be good or bad for the game and its popularity. We are in uncharted territory now. + Show Spoiler +
On April 16 2011 22:29 StarStruck wrote: It doesn't pertain to the OP then. The comparisons become void.
So, once again I ask you what effect does this unit micro have on map control and game flow? How can a player effectively push the other one back when they have a massive army right knocking right on their doorstep?
I cannot think of many that gives another player pause. This is one of the reasons we see base trades in SC2 so often.
I've watched more or less every GSL match and alot of EU/US tournaments and i can count on my two hands the amount of base trades i've seen. I agree that we need some more units that delay attacks like the lurker/siege tank but adding incorrect fluff to you posts add nothing to your argument.
Then you need to watch more. I've watched a ridiculous amount and I see players trading bases more times than I've ever seen in watching over ten years of Starcraft Vanilla and Brood War. What reason do they have to backup though when they can counter by storming the other guy's main? In most cases, it would put them behind and ultimately lose the game.
I haven't posted anything that can be classified as incorrect fluff. Sorry if you feel that way. The reason I ask you those questions is because your logic is as one-dimensional as the guy you were retaliating against, which adds nothing in itself. Unit micro is one thing. Unit utility involving map control and game flow is another.
every single point in the OP can just be re-formulated as "this is different from BW, and this and this and this".
step away from BW for a sec and try to understand e-sports as a whole. you say you want SC2 to become big? well that means it has to appeal to other people than just BW-fans
if you like seige tanks good for you, not everyone does. the long TvTs are good but if every game was like that people wouldnt watch.
On April 16 2011 22:39 StarStruck wrote: Then you need to watch more. I've watched a ridiculous amount and I see players trading bases more times than I've ever seen in watching over ten years of Starcraft Vanilla and Brood War.
I haven't posted anything that can be classified as incorrect fluff. Sorry if you feel that way. The reason I ask you those questions is because your logic is as one-dimensional as the guy you were retaliating against, which adds nothing in itself. Unit micro is one thing. Unit utility involving map control and game flow is another.
Then you need to explain to me the definition of a base trade, cause i've seen few.
I wasn't going into unit utility/game flow, i was responding to a complaint that SC2 micro was boring and uninspiring. Something that's not really true for most people watching Marineking or MVP/MC. The reason this thread is not getting anywhere is because people can't be objective when it comes to their favorite game and i get annoyed when people present their subjective opinion as some kind of "ultimate truth", that's the only thing i was getting at in my post about micro.
On April 16 2011 10:04 Krehlmar wrote: Nice topic if it wasn't an obvious skew towards BW favoring above SC2. I'm sorry but that's how it comes of for a person like me who never was "there" for the whole awesome BW times.
I just don't get why people mistake old coding/graphics/features as marks of triumph and master design. Trust me nobody was thinking about esports when Starcraft I was made.
Did, however, these limits give players more room to exercise "skill"? That should be the question. I don't think so.
As Day9 said: Anything made easier is not a dumbing down the game or making it more eazplay... IF there is some other skill moment to use your time on.
It feels as if every BW fan thinks that the fast pace of SC2 is a bad thing, whereas I see it as an obvious bigger mental challange since everything is faster and requires more micro (even if people won't admit it, there is so many many MANY mistakes constantly even by the probes, 80% chronobosts, tripple mules etc etc.)
I will agree on flawed design on some instances, zerg has to do much more to get the same results as other races imo but sadly people are just not experimenting enough. I love IdrA, but IdrA is no innovater; He won't invent the new tactic that'll win games for zerg. Just the fact that nobody uses Nydus Worms correctly yet is a show of this.
Either way I don't really appreciate this topic since it's mostly regarding the subject from a BW fanboy perspective, I do however acknowledge the topic at hand and I wish it could be discussed on a more neutral basis.
Lastly, there can be epic games in SC2 aswell, there are many games when there are tons and tons of things happening and it's great. Problem is it's still a labile game, new maps, new tactics aswell as blizzard firstly designing it to have small maps etc. Just please remember that for every new tactic, every new "cheese" etc. that's a step forward for the game, that's something players will learn from, adapt to and develop new tactics to counter, making it more and more skewed towards skill.
This pretty much. The whole post reads as nostalgic Brood War praise in my eyes. I'll try to watch Brood War, and as a spectator, for me it's just completely boring.
Perhaps Blizzard should think of reintroducing their 'design' and artificially make SC2 harder. Get control groups to max at 2 units. Let us behold the mastery of 200/200 @ such a limit. Oh the mechanics.
Sorry but the argument is invertible. One can talk about SC2 and praise its design and loathe BW's just as much as the other way around. Neither is factual, it's just an opinion. The problem most of these threads have is trying to genuinely pose the arguments as some sort of fact.
I'll continue watching SC2 and continue to love it, and hope it doesn't change anywhere near around what BW was.
Has anyone here played SC2BW to an extensive amount so they can perhaps give an opinion as to what it feels like playing BW-esque gameplay on the SC2 engine? I think many people here are suggesting that if SC2 was more like BW it would succeed, and there's already a mod out there with 12 unit control groups and such that give a BW feel to SC2 (even though it's meant to be just BW).
Anyway, I don't think that it would be the same. I agree that 1a'ing everything in the game isn't fun to watch, but if we revert to the old scheme of things and had 12 unit control groups it wouldn't really work given the engine we have right now. Maybe the expansions will fix things with all of the new units and things that are being added. Hopefully lurkers get a return.
On April 16 2011 22:41 Soma.bokforlag wrote: every single point in the OP can just be re-formulated as "this is different from BW, and this and this and this".
step away from BW for a sec and try to understand e-sports as a whole. you say you want SC2 to become big? well that means it has to appeal to other people than just BW-fans
if you like seige tanks good for you, not everyone does. the long TvTs are good but if every game was like that people wouldnt watch.
He dosen't talk about how sc2 should become bw, he talks about how SC2 could be more intesne, intresting, cooler and overall better, for both players and spectators.
Well i never thought SC2 is missing something. SC2 is created a different and a separate game. I think Blizzard created SC2 for larger audience and more user friendly that most can play the game at the average level. I agree that BW is more fun to watch but most can't play it that the average pro player can. One can execute some pro builds that they see on stream, not perfectly but they can do it with some effort. As times goes on, every thing comes easy that everyone can relate too. I think that what Blizzard expectations on this game, no limitations.
On April 16 2011 22:45 Callous wrote: Has anyone here played SC2BW to an extensive amount so they can perhaps give an opinion as to what it feels like playing BW-esque gameplay on the SC2 engine? I think many people here are suggesting that if SC2 was more like BW it would succeed, and there's already a mod out there with 12 unit control groups and such that give a BW feel to SC2 (even though it's meant to be just BW).
Anyway, I don't think that it would be the same. I agree that 1a'ing everything in the game isn't fun to watch, but if we revert to the old scheme of things and had 12 unit control groups it wouldn't really work given the engine we have right now. Maybe the expansions will fix things with all of the new units and things that are being added. Hopefully lurkers get a return.
On April 16 2011 21:27 teekesselchen wrote: I fully agree to the opening post. The relation of playstyles and unit handling was really reduced to a poor one in SC2. This is what I think since the start of beta and I'm very glad that somebody formulated that so well here. Micro looks absolutely unspectacular, boring and goes way too much into detail instead of beeing obvious like in SC:BW.
Also, the ratio of the importance of single units (or low numbers of units) got really lowered imo. One Reaver? Yes, please. One Colossus? Na, better build four or five! One Siegetank defending an expansion in BW? Can be quite effective. One Tank defending an SC2-Expansion? Waste of money, will get off a maximum of two shots before dying.
SC2 mechanics indeed did reduce the importance of units to the dps I deliver, agreed. As everything just clumbs up to a big blob with everything attackning, micro got diminished.
How is this micro any different from Nada micro against Lurkers? Also Sjows great banshee control and decisionmaking in his recent Dreamhack run was great, just some examples.
The Problem is much more fundamental: Lurkers are some kind of special defense unit. They are made for cost-efficient defense, but beeing tricky in offensive use. What are Banelings? Just another unit that has no specified situation, can work offensively and defensively.
Why is that important? Lurkers helped spreading out matches. When I can defend a base super cost efficiently with a couple of lurkers and static defense and perhaps some mobile forces which I can move there any time, then it means that I do not need my main army to defend that spot. Because even if I'ld lose those lurkers and that base, the probability that I killed a lot of enemy units is high.
That does not work anymore in SC2. Almost every army fights at the almost same cost efficiency level regardless whether it attacks or defends. Having 10 Banelings defend an expansion on their own? Better not, they'll just splash before reaching their enemies. That's where the difference between a Lurker and a Baneling is.
What also follows out of this: Spread out match leads to more importance of single actions and single units. A 3-Base situation won't benefit DT or HT drops for example, so people just focuss on defending because spreading further won't work out well as there is no cost efficient defense. Also, we already know those graphs, more than 3 base are pretty useless in SC2 anyways.
And this is why some people refuse to give SC2 time to evolve.
Let me tell you something, the same way you just did, but for the sake of all this great thread, I'll do it the other way around. Lurkers are boring compared to banelings because they do exactly what anyone would think of doing with them : burrow them at your base to defend or try to bring them offensively and use them kind of like siege tanks to make your main army stronger. While banelings not only can they blow shit up, but you can burrow them at random place to kill a good amount of units, something that cant be done with lurkers because once they attack, the enemy knows where they are and they're now semi-useless. Banelings can also be used to burst a building down very quickly to open a path for your main forces. Banelings are also great to use with other ground units to do a great surround, which lurkers cant do. Another things you can do with banelings that you can't do with lurker is to bomb drop them on your opponent's army with your main forces are fighting.
I just did what you did. Say good things about something I like and totally put down something I don't like just to make my personal preference look even better, all in a masterful display of ignorance about the things I dislike.
We're all equally stupid in this endless argument.
EPT
