EPTEither that or they are still too involved in the BW scene. ^^
[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
nvs.
Canada3609 Posts
Either that or they are still too involved in the BW scene. ^^ | ||
|
legaton
France1763 Posts
| ||
|
chongu
Malaysia2579 Posts
One thing I miss about BW is the strategies and the nostalgic memories the maps had - Playing on Medusa always had me thinking of Fantasy sneaking 2 vultures though the mineral glitch through the stacked temples and Blue storm had me thinking of July's proxy hatch against Bisu. Not so much in SC2 - where there were just a lot of stuff killing each other everywhere. A good implementation for Blizzard would be to include micro-added gameplay mechanics via map artifacts and doodads. E.g, lurker eggs, the gas geysers tricks or even bridges - lots and lots of bridges. Or give players strategic choices when it comes to deciding where to expand by limiting their choices somewhat (e.g, judgement day) That being said - SC2 has tons of potential and it still might prove to be a greater success compared to what BW had in it's glory days. But good ol blizzy has to make drastic changes in the multiplayer in the upcoming expansions (don't just add 6 multiplayer units and some weird macro mechanic to work with) | ||
|
blamous
United States377 Posts
The reason you are even able to write a thread like this is because BW had a decade of gameplay to get it to where it is right now. I don't disagree with the points made about BW, they are absolutely true. But why not wait until the game is finished and playing for a few years before we decide its not good enough. The designers are not the people who made BW great, it was the players doing great things with what they had. Don't count on the dev team to make another BW, that is not going to happen. It's going to be up to you and me to do amazing things with the game. And if we can't, then the game will die. It's as simple as that. | ||
|
[Atomic]Peace
United States451 Posts
| ||
|
MorningLtMtn
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
SiguR
Canada2039 Posts
However, is it possible that there are interesting micro tricks or map control techniques that haven't been discovered yet? As many have said, it took time for many of those things to get hashed out in brood war. Maybe storms will never be as impressive in the same way, but who's to say someone won't figure out a way to increase their effectiveness through efficient use and higher apm? | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On April 17 2011 02:23 blamous wrote: No disrespect, but I'm a little tired of these kinds of discussions. The reason you are even able to write a thread like this is because BW had a decade of gameplay to get it to where it is right now. I don't disagree with the points made about BW, they are absolutely true. But why not wait until the game is finished and playing for a few years before we decide its not good enough. The designers are not the people who made BW great, it was the players doing great things with what they had. Don't count on the dev team to make another BW, that is not going to happen. It's going to be up to you and me to do amazing things with the game. And if we can't, then the game will die. It's as simple as that. Well ur right to an extent.It's difficult to imagine terran play today if Boxer never played BW | ||
|
Faveokatro
80 Posts
This is why SC2 took off here whereas BW had trouble - Yes it's simpler, it's mechanically easier. But that also means it's more generally palatable, because people don't have to appreciate how difficult it is to play to enjoy it. The end all be all is that what should be emphasized is the end product on the screen - how good is it? Not introducing artificial hurdles for the players to go through like removing smartcasting or limiting group sizes. I entirely agree there should be more situations like early reaper harass pre-nerf (although, that was probably imba). The better solution is adding a round of abilities that were taken away in alpha/beta because it was difficult to balance 50 abilities simultaneously. Ironically, you see most of the qualities supposedly missing right now - in early PvP. You constantly read how it's boring and the worst matchup. Yet, it's the only one right now in the early game that really emphasizes how much better one player is than another at small unit micro. Army sizes are more or less the same, so it comes down to precise target firing. You have immortals (your "setup" unit with its slow movement, low range, high damage), blink, zealot dodging, force field (singular because there's usually only 1). | ||
|
serge
Russian Federation142 Posts
They should've made it an ability that causes all selected HTs to chain energy into one superstorm. The more HTs the have selected, the more damage the storm will do. Each additional HT adds incrementally less damage. Storms don't stack. Want to blanket the map with deadly storms? Better hotkey templar in pairs as opposed to having them in one giant control group 1attttttttttt. There you go, perfect excuse to hotkey each HT separately while still keeping the multiselection thing worth its salt. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On April 17 2011 02:32 Faveokatro wrote: If you're basing a league on a viewer experience that requires deep understanding of the game in order to appreciate, you're not going to succeed in NA and EU. That's not slamming the general population, it's the simple truth. 90% of the American Football audience couldn't tell me the actual definition of a blitz, and a similar amount of the EU Football scene couldn't describe what the skillset difference between a winger and an attacking midfielder is (and don't say that one is more comfortable working the sidelines...). People don't want to invest a ton of time learning in order to enjoy an event. This is why SC2 took off here whereas BW had trouble - Yes it's simpler, it's mechanically easier. But that also means it's more generally palatable, because people don't have to appreciate how difficult it is to play to enjoy it. The end all be all is that what should be emphasized is the end product on the screen - how good is it? Not introducing artificial hurdles for the players to go through like removing smartcasting or limiting group sizes. I entirely agree there should be more situations like early reaper harass pre-nerf (although, that was probably imba). The better solution is adding a round of abilities that were taken away in alpha/beta because it was difficult to balance 50 abilities simultaneously. Ironically, you see most of the qualities supposedly missing right now - in early PvP. You constantly read how it's boring and the worst matchup. Yet, it's the only one right now in the early game that really emphasizes how much better one player is than another at small unit micro. Army sizes are more or less the same, so it comes down to precise target firing. You have immortals (your "setup" unit with its slow movement, low range, high damage), blink, zealot dodging, force field (singular because there's usually only 1). no no no. broodwar isnt hard to appreciate even with limited expirience. if you explain someone those players are playing at constant 5+ actions per second they go "whoah" . anyone who ever played a rts or any game somewhat decently can appreciate the "skill" involved anyways. let someone play broodwar for 20 minutes and he will learn to appreciate. look at korea. you think the whole viewerbase are hardcore players? think all the fangirls/boys and all the "old people" really play and "understand" the game? no, they just follow the game. if anything the display of skill in sc2 is way less apparent and more subtile. and thus harder to understand. wrote that example before but again: my younger brother playd quite some wc3 and sometimes watched me play broodwar. he understands the rts basics ,micro/macro etc so he should love sc2 right?. when i watched a sc2 game with him he constantly asked " well whats so special about that? both 1a their units and one guy wins? thats boring.". and if you wanna take it to a even lower level of spectators then sc2 is in NO WAY easier to understand then broodwar. if you jsut watch it for the flashy fights then the only aspect where broodwar is harder to understand is the bad graphics. but that has nothing to do with the game itself and this thread. no matter how you look at it. at the lowest level of understanding it doesnt matter how complex/hard the game is since you just watch at blue or red stuff exploding. but the more you understand the game the more bw pulls ahead as a spectator sport since people can appreciate the raw skilled needed to pull of and fights were interesting stuff happens. (and im not going into basic unit design which was MUCH more exciting in bw for evryone. see OP and the scarab/mine "hold breath .... OOOOMMGGG" moment") also sc2 took off cause of: 1. broodwar ,the best rts ever made 2. teamliquid/korea. without the community starcraft would just be "that old space warcraft no one cares about" 3. wc3 4. the infrastructure is now there . in my bw time we connected to a teamspeak server midnight so 20 people could listen to one guy casting some stuff. its not a question why that didnt take off. its not some special magical prphet for esports. it just merged the bw/wc3/rts communities with a new game that from the day it was announced was deemed to become the new standart rts. its not sc2 that did all that. its not blizzard who did that. its the rts community who make sc2 the esport success it is. and just ask yourself, will people watch something like a stalker/collosus ball 1a over another ball for 5+ years? i doubt it. the depth ,great design ,dynamics and high skillcap kept bw and wc3 alive for years. not flashy lazers making stuff explode in the same way 5000 times. | ||
|
Zeborg
107 Posts
1) It's easier to predict who will win the game after a large battle has been decided. There are exceptions of course. 2) Large battles happen too quickly (even if the games themselves last a while). 3) Build-order counters that are not scoutable. 4) 1-battle-and-done games. 5) It's too hard to make a comeback after losing one battle. 6) All the air units (viking, phoenix, corruptor) are too similar in how they attack air. Their side-abilities offer different functionality, but their main roles being similar feels uninspired. 7) Watching colossi, roaches, and banshees is not fun. 8) Large macro games where pro players largely turtle, with small harassments and drops here and there. And then the game finishes with "X" number of ball of deaths vs ball of deaths. 9) Watching compact balls of death is sort of boring. 10) Upsets happen too frequently for me to consider them upsets. Having said that, there are a few things I enjoy about SC2 as a spectator: 1) Marines by themselves, if controlled properly, can fight banelings (their counter). Banelings are only a "soft-counter" to marines. Like watching marine/lurker interaction imo. SC2 would be even better with these types of interactions. 2) TVT and ZVT can be really fun to watch. 3) Novelty. Watching new strategies emerge is fun, but eventually the novelty factor will go away. 4) Nydus canals and warpgates. 5) Stalker micro. 6) I'm cool with cheese. It's part of the game. 7) The open-minded community. Any community needs people that offer both support and constructive criticism. Eventually, these things may change, and I hope the community continues to remain critical and SC2 continues to improve. | ||
|
salidsnake
United States50 Posts
The OP touches on the mechanics of BW vs how easy they are in SC2. BW mechanics are so hard because of the limitations of the game when it was designed. Blizzard probably would have implemented smart casting and the ability to select more units at a time than 12, if it was possible at the time. Another reason why BW is so mechanically demanding compared to SC2 is the unit AI is terrible and just getting units to do what you want was such a challenge (dragoons, reavers). One important aspect of SC2 that is just beginning to be explored is refining builds and mechanics in a way that hasn't been done in since BW. This subject was mentioned on the most recent State of the Game by incontrol and nony. Up until recently players were not playing and thinking the way they did in brood war and consequently everyone play isn't where it could be. For example the only player I have noticed doing this was oGsMC, in his recent matches against whitera he they would both be going 4 warpgate, but MC would just have more supply and more units faster. He has refined his timings and building placements in a way that is just plain better than everyone else. So in the long run, SC2 will be as exciting and rewarding to watch as BW. It just needs to be given time to grow. And there are still 2 expansions left which could dramatically change SC2 as brood war did for SC1. I think the hardcore fans of both games should just lay off the hate, we all love Starcraft and the pointless bickering is only hurting the community. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
| ||
|
ahx
Canada132 Posts
| ||
|
Fungal Growth
United States434 Posts
Problem with SC2 compared to SC1 is that the units/game play is to fast and the units die too quickly. This means less positional play and less strategic use of specialty units as most battles come down to all or nothing...do I have a more expensive army than you do. Part of the problem too are the specialty abilities like mules/queens/CB not to mention double geysers which emphasis macro econ play and deemphasis doing more with less (micro). Even the improved pathing in SC2 messed up the gameplay...as units don't have to 'diagnol walk' which means they can beeline straight into the battle which speeds up the pace of the battle and fast battles don't favor micro nor positioning. | ||
|
Footler
United States560 Posts
However, I think you almost hit it on the head with the spellcasters. I say almost because, "no player involved response with sentries?" Guardian shield goes up you CAN target the sentry first, that's pretty involved, how impressive would it look if a big engagement happens with the protoss throwing up 3 guardian shields and the terran almost instantly picks off all 3 shielding sentries? That would be pretty badass imo. Forcefields can involve lots of mind games just like when people try to force stims, that's pretty involved. Not to mention as the game progresses there a more ways of dealing with forcefields such as medivac pickups or in the case that forcefield is being used as a way for the protoss to retreat you could potentially anticipate this and have a thor in a medivac ready to drop on a forcefield. It all sounds ridiculous but these are the sorts of tricks that will very likely evolve once the fundamentals are more well established, because fundamentals are what win games right now. Now fungal, ya that is a really stupid, highly uninteresting spell. It is even visually unappealing. I also think we have yet to see a lot of other spells worked into standard play such as the seeker missile and neural parasite. I think the Dimaga vs MVP game showcased to some degree how exciting neural parasite could be when properly employed. But I do think the for the most part SC2 sorely needs more interesting spells/spellcasters which I'm fully expecting in the 2 expansions. Protoss needs a real air spellcaster, not this hero mothership unit that gets nerfed every patch depsite its under utilization. | ||
|
Fighter
Korea (South)1531 Posts
One of the big things, for me at least, is that there were a number of units that just really produced those "tension" moments. When scourge are chasing a shuttle the whole crowd gets stuck in anticipation, "oh god it's so close! It's getting closer is it gonna catch it?? ahhhh" etc. Same thing goes for reaver drops -- "oh god a reaver drop! It shoots, but the terran pulls his SCVs, the scarab's chasing! Is it gonna hit? How many will it kill??" Hold lurkers produced a lot of great moments like these as well. SC2 just doesn't seem to have the units that produce moments like these. Baneling mines are a bit like hold lurkers, but they never seem to work as well... I AM really enjoying SC2, but it'd be great if some more "spectator friendly" units were added in HotS. | ||
|
Dagon
Romania264 Posts
On April 16 2011 10:07 SnuggleZhenya wrote: I think outside of a few situations, it seems that the very micro intensive battles seem to happen early in the game in SC2. 4gate v. 4gate, for example. For whatever reason, micro seems to play a lot smaller roll in the mid game than it used to. I think we do see some exciting moments in SC2 mid game though: 1) Marine splits v. Banelings 2) Forcefields to produce exciting in game moments, but as you said, its one sided and momentary. I did see someone in the NASL use a medivac to pick up marines in front of forcefields and drop them off behind mid battle (I think it was in a NASL game, I watch too much, I can't remember all the time where each game is from), I was impressed, but I can't remember which game it was in. So, there are moments there, but I think due to the fact, as you said, that battles are over so quickly, that it seems that micro has generally been deemphasized in favor of macro, in part due to AI improvements that have made bigger armies almost always simply better than smaller ones. I'm painting with a broad brush here, and I could easily be corrected on certain points, but you get the idea. The other big one I think is map control, as you brought up. If anyone has a premium NASL subscription and hasn't seen Nada v. DDE from last night, GO WATCH IT. Game 3 especially. Some old school tank lines in that game, and I won't spoil it, but that match felt very "old school" to me. In fact, the one matchup that produces those kinds of games tends to be TvT - and Tanks probably sums up the reason. Anyway, I'm a noob in the end, and more spectator than player , so my opinions aren't exactly "pro" but I'm not sure what else can be done in the current state of the game besides hope that players get even better at unit control. Perhaps HotS will offer up some protoss and zerg units that can can act more as territory control. Pretty much this! TvT îs pretty much the same as in BW, but with marines instead of goliaths, and with less drops. And that îs exactly because of the siege tank, an overpowered unit (in some ways) that requires positional thinking and setup.. Also, in BW it seemed that in a+move against a+move battles first fier units did the most damage with proper upgrades, but late game unit were all so damn imbalanced in and of themselves that just a couple could kill a 200/200 army of first tier units with good positioning and micro.. The only unit that seems to be this kind of overpowered in sc2 îs the collossus, that îs an a+move unit unfortunately.. SC2 needs more ridiculously strong units in each race.. This îs what creates interesting dynamics. Not balls of deat (and steel) moving about.. What good îs an ambush when the ambushed units simply don't care.. Sc2 was interesting to the point that SunTzu's teaching actually applied. Sc2 îs not. Think about war in real life! Sc2 battels are very much like Braveheart style battles: armies colliding. Sc1 was much more like modern war.. Taking controll of territory and using "special tactics"  | ||
|
R0YAL
United States1768 Posts
On April 16 2011 09:48 Dusty1337 wrote: I think SC2 just needs more time. Granted I didn't read the entire post but I read a good amount of it, future expansions might make sc2 even better than bw some day. Theres tons of people saying that sc2 just needs more time and although that may to true to an extent, theres only so much you can do when all the units are hopelessly one dimensional. | ||
| ||
