|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
I'd say its that a lot of people get angry and have a knee jerk reaction at the comparison because they think "oh another brood war elitist who wants to get rid of MBS." Its an unfortunate consequence of bringing up the two games in the same thread on this forum from my experience (which is mostly lurking).
On April 17 2011 11:34 suejak wrote:
Not sure how I feel, honestly. I think one-shot massive damage units are sort of boring if every race has them... Although obviously "space control" and "set-up time" is, to some extent, an interesting idea...
But I do think you should enjoy BW for what it is, and leave SC2 to be something different. Don't try to make it what BW is. Most of us don't even want that.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying SC2 and BW should be identical.
|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
I certainly agree with you for the most part.. even though the thread has collapsed into a sc2 vs bw word war, encouraged even by some TL staff (not you)..
|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
I think it's mostly the latter. A lot of people criticizing BW have not watched or understood enough BW, but have decided that they are qualified to do so. It's not that SC2 should become BW, but that SC2 lacks some of the ASPECTS of BW that made it so great. Granted I understand it's hard to truly get into BW unless you understand korean or are willing to do a lot of research.
|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
most people who think sc2 is superior seem to not know what SPL even stands for... you can't really point out sc2's flaws with BW since they know very little about BW... even if very specific examples are given, it's just too foreign to them. bw campaign and fastest money map on battle.net is all they know about BW.
|
You guys don't understand my comment at all.
These aspects of BW are part of BW. They are, perhaps, not part of SC2. Perhaps it's better that way, and it's best not to try to introduce those aspects into SC2, which is a fundamentally different game.
I did not accuse anyone of trying to make the games identical.
|
On April 17 2011 12:01 suejak wrote:
You guys don't understand my comment at all.
These aspects of BW are part of BW. They are, perhaps, not part of SC2. Perhaps it's better that way, and it's best not to try to introduce those aspects into SC2, which is a fundamentally different game.
I did not accuse anyone of trying to make the games identical.
We're saying that SC2 can be a better game if it had elements that made BW so great. I don't understand how the game is fundamentally different. The game is designed around the same concepts of map, resource, units, and tech. At the core, it is an RTS game. What makes RTS games great should apply to most RTS games.
You're saying that SC2 should stay the way it is and it will grow by itself.
We're pointing out in which areas SC2 can definitely grow because we have a great example such as BW to compare it to.
|
I don't see why you wouldn't want what he's saying other than to be argumentative. You don't want the game to have any more depth in regards to unit positioning or micro... you're happy just right now how it is because?
|
|
|
On April 17 2011 12:16 zuperketla wrote:
nostalgia much? :D
How is it nostalgia when I was watching the MSL Ro32, literally, yesterday? I'm not trying to troll, just pointing out the misuse of the word.
|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
No, people are mad because much of your OP uses examples of BW that would require "game design" alterations as evidence on why BW has the it factor and SC2 does not. Most people are in agreement that new, more interesting units need to be added and certain existing units need to be modified like the corruptor.
|
I can't believe the "give sc2 more time" argument STILL exists.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2011 07:07 jenzebubble wrote:
You are comparing SC:BW with ten years of maturation vs. a game that has been out a year. You are comparing players that have mastered a game vs. players still figuring out how things work (Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell, 10k hours.) I understand that from a competitive stand point SC2 isn't where a lot of us would like it to be. That said, neither was SC1 at release. Were you around when 99% of SCBW competitive games were played on Lost Temple, because every other map stunk? Remember when River Styx was a ladder map? _River Styx_! Were you around for that? When the first big invitational tournament played had Thresh as a player? (Because they couldn't find 16 players with enough name cache to invite).
I think the OP lacks perspective. SC1 took a long time to become a game that could support high level competitive play. Were you around for that period of SC1's development you'd realize that the changes you'd like to see take time.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 17 2011 09:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Good post, a lot of valid points but I as a whole, disagree. Comparing a game that players have had time to refine for years and years and years Versus a year of SC2 of course the differences and battles aren't going to be up to par.
When people find out how to maximize effectiveness of every unit, and they have to APM to do it, things will start shaping up and taking longer, you already see this with good players. If two players decide to just engage each others armies, of course the battle will end in 10 seconds, its up to the players to make the better decisions, not the game. Watch a good P or Z go against a Tank push in SC2, they don't engage it and die right away, the fight takes 5 minutes of the Zerg repositioning and trying flanks...
Give it more time... jeeze.
Really, BW development was RTS development. That includes sc2. We didn't look look for things like micro pre-BW. But in SC2, everyone (and literally everyone) was scrambling to find out the next big strategy or play style. Just look at the sc2 strategy section. It's always "so and so's FE!" "TL poster's 1 base push!". The "give it more time" argument has been proven false so many times, please just do a search on previous threads.
On April 17 2011 11:44 ploy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example? I certainly agree with you for the most part.. even though the thread has collapsed into a sc2 vs bw word war, encouraged even by some TL staff (not you)..
I don't know about the mods, or anyone else, but I definitely think it's time for a massive sc2 vs BW war. Like a GIANT, ban/perma-ban most of TL war. I'm still pissed that I have to scroll through literally 50 pages of random, amateur tournaments in the "Upcoming events" in order to find out when the Winner's League Final is. Or that the MSL finals Featured News was literally up for less than 24 hours before getting booted off the front page for more amateur sc2 crap.
We have a Sports & Games section of TL, that's where sc2 should be. Is sc2 better than every non-BW RTS? Probably. Is it good enough to suddenly take up like 80% of teamliquid? Idk, but it hasn't been proven to be. So until SC2 can prove itself as a professional level game, I think it shouldn't be TL's main focus. Which it is. Which is bullshit imoimoimo. Players like Bisu, Jaedong, Fantasy, Flash, etc, are losing the spotlight/front page spot for people like Iron (MC), Clare (Foxer), Zergbong (Nestea), and foreigners. What? It says at the top, Teamliquid is a Starcraft progaming new site. Sc2 as of right now is a glorified, corporate, greed-fueled cesspit of 2nd rate progamers in terms of playing level. Is that the fault of the players not being good enough? No, it's the fault of the game fundamentally having too low of a skill ceiling. Jaedong would never drop a single Bo100 game vs Idra and yet in sc2, it could happen. Disgusting
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 17 2011 12:46 Xenocide_Knight wrote:I can't believe the "give sc2 more time" argument STILL exists. + Show Spoiler +On April 17 2011 07:07 jenzebubble wrote:
You are comparing SC:BW with ten years of maturation vs. a game that has been out a year. You are comparing players that have mastered a game vs. players still figuring out how things work (Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell, 10k hours.) I understand that from a competitive stand point SC2 isn't where a lot of us would like it to be. That said, neither was SC1 at release. Were you around when 99% of SCBW competitive games were played on Lost Temple, because every other map stunk? Remember when River Styx was a ladder map? _River Styx_! Were you around for that? When the first big invitational tournament played had Thresh as a player? (Because they couldn't find 16 players with enough name cache to invite).
I think the OP lacks perspective. SC1 took a long time to become a game that could support high level competitive play. Were you around for that period of SC1's development you'd realize that the changes you'd like to see take time. On April 17 2011 09:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Good post, a lot of valid points but I as a whole, disagree. Comparing a game that players have had time to refine for years and years and years Versus a year of SC2 of course the differences and battles aren't going to be up to par.
When people find out how to maximize effectiveness of every unit, and they have to APM to do it, things will start shaping up and taking longer, you already see this with good players. If two players decide to just engage each others armies, of course the battle will end in 10 seconds, its up to the players to make the better decisions, not the game. Watch a good P or Z go against a Tank push in SC2, they don't engage it and die right away, the fight takes 5 minutes of the Zerg repositioning and trying flanks...
Give it more time... jeeze. Really, BW development was RTS development. That includes sc2. We didn't look look for things like micro pre-BW. But in SC2, everyone (and literally everyone) was scrambling to find out the next big strategy or play style. Just look at the sc2 strategy section. It's always "so and so's FE!" "TL poster's 1 base push!". The "give it more time" argument has been proven false so many times, please just do a search on previous threads. Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 11:44 ploy wrote:On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example? I certainly agree with you for the most part.. even though the thread has collapsed into a sc2 vs bw word war, encouraged even by some TL staff (not you).. I don't know about the mods, or anyone else, but I definitely think it's time for a massive sc2 vs BW war. Like a GIANT, ban/perma-ban most of TL war. I'm still pissed that I have to scroll through literally 50 pages of random, amateur tournaments in the "Upcoming events" in order to find out when the Winner's League Final is. Or that the MSL finals Featured News was literally up for less than 24 hours before getting booted off the front page for more amateur sc2 crap. We have a Sports & Games section of TL, that's where sc2 should be. Is sc2 better than every non-BW RTS? Probably. Is it good enough to suddenly take up like 80% of teamliquid? Idk, but it hasn't been proven to be. So until SC2 can prove itself as a professional level game, I think it shouldn't be TL's main focus. Which it is. Which is bullshit imoimoimo. Players like Bisu, Jaedong, Fantasy, Flash, etc, are losing the spotlight/front page spot for people like Iron (MC), Clare (Foxer), Zergbong (Nestea), and foreigners. What? It says at the top, Teamliquid is a Starcraft progaming new site. Sc2 as of right now is a glorified, corporate, greed-fueled cesspit of 2nd rate progamers in terms of playing level. Is that the fault of the players not being good enough? No, it's the fault of the game fundamentally having too low of a skill ceiling. Jaedong would never drop a single Bo100 game vs Idra and yet in sc2, it could happen. Disgusting
hahaha, nice contribution, jerk :D
First of all, Jaedong totally would drop a game to idra in a BW bo100. Don't be ridiculous.
Secondly, the gap exists because BW is about something different than what SC2 is about. It's not "disgusting" that Idra could fare well against Jaedong in a bo100---it implies that the game weighs different skills differently. It does not automatically mean that the game is random and Jaedong's true SC2 skills are not coming through.
Ok?
|
United States7483 Posts
Hrm, lots of "Give SC2 time" arguments, and lots of "Brood war isn't SC2" and some "Elitist jerk" comments.
I'm gonna go with the "Heart of the Swarm is going to add units and researches to the game, and so will Legacy of the Void" argument.
I expect we'll get those space controlling units.
|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
Isn't that a "game design suggestion"? Anyway, If I wanted tanks, I'd play Terran. The races should be different.
Terran maintain map control by having big roadblocks that take time to set up.
Zerg maintain map control by threat. While spines are somewhat similar to tanks being a defensive unit similar to tanks (and if they don't fill the role well enough, that calls for a buff; it's not a "fundamental flaw"). Zerg maintain map control by the threat of runbys and muta harass. This forces Terran to have be be very careful when leaving his territory, and is as strong a deterrent as tanks, albeit a less visible one. That this doesn't work as well against Protoss is a balance issue, not a design one.
Protoss *can* get some map control by DTs, but are generally left in the lurch in both BW and SC2 in this regard. They don't need to have a really strong defensive ability because they have the strongest 200/200 ball in both games already.
The entire rest of your post is just you putting on your hipster glasses and talking about your feeeeeeelings, and since I can't quantify or change your feeeeeeelings, then there's not much of a discussion to be had.
|
On April 17 2011 12:46 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
I don't know about the mods, or anyone else, but I definitely think it's time for a massive sc2 vs BW war.
I agree entirely. Anyone who comes into the Starcraft 2 section of the board and gives a gigantic rant that boils down to "Starcraft 2 sucks and no one who plays it is any good or should have any pride in themselves" should be banned, just like anyone who went into the BW section and posted a thread about how BW sucked and SC2 was so much better would be rightfully banned.
Fortunately, I don't make the rules. But I've love to see one of these BW hipsters go up to Ret or Jinro or MC, and say that all their time spent practicing is worthless because there's no skill involved at all. I wonder what kind of reaction they get.
|
On April 17 2011 12:57 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 12:46 Xenocide_Knight wrote:I can't believe the "give sc2 more time" argument STILL exists. + Show Spoiler +On April 17 2011 07:07 jenzebubble wrote:
You are comparing SC:BW with ten years of maturation vs. a game that has been out a year. You are comparing players that have mastered a game vs. players still figuring out how things work (Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell, 10k hours.) I understand that from a competitive stand point SC2 isn't where a lot of us would like it to be. That said, neither was SC1 at release. Were you around when 99% of SCBW competitive games were played on Lost Temple, because every other map stunk? Remember when River Styx was a ladder map? _River Styx_! Were you around for that? When the first big invitational tournament played had Thresh as a player? (Because they couldn't find 16 players with enough name cache to invite).
I think the OP lacks perspective. SC1 took a long time to become a game that could support high level competitive play. Were you around for that period of SC1's development you'd realize that the changes you'd like to see take time. On April 17 2011 09:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Good post, a lot of valid points but I as a whole, disagree. Comparing a game that players have had time to refine for years and years and years Versus a year of SC2 of course the differences and battles aren't going to be up to par.
When people find out how to maximize effectiveness of every unit, and they have to APM to do it, things will start shaping up and taking longer, you already see this with good players. If two players decide to just engage each others armies, of course the battle will end in 10 seconds, its up to the players to make the better decisions, not the game. Watch a good P or Z go against a Tank push in SC2, they don't engage it and die right away, the fight takes 5 minutes of the Zerg repositioning and trying flanks...
Give it more time... jeeze. Really, BW development was RTS development. That includes sc2. We didn't look look for things like micro pre-BW. But in SC2, everyone (and literally everyone) was scrambling to find out the next big strategy or play style. Just look at the sc2 strategy section. It's always "so and so's FE!" "TL poster's 1 base push!". The "give it more time" argument has been proven false so many times, please just do a search on previous threads. On April 17 2011 11:44 ploy wrote:On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example? I certainly agree with you for the most part.. even though the thread has collapsed into a sc2 vs bw word war, encouraged even by some TL staff (not you).. I don't know about the mods, or anyone else, but I definitely think it's time for a massive sc2 vs BW war. Like a GIANT, ban/perma-ban most of TL war. I'm still pissed that I have to scroll through literally 50 pages of random, amateur tournaments in the "Upcoming events" in order to find out when the Winner's League Final is. Or that the MSL finals Featured News was literally up for less than 24 hours before getting booted off the front page for more amateur sc2 crap. We have a Sports & Games section of TL, that's where sc2 should be. Is sc2 better than every non-BW RTS? Probably. Is it good enough to suddenly take up like 80% of teamliquid? Idk, but it hasn't been proven to be. So until SC2 can prove itself as a professional level game, I think it shouldn't be TL's main focus. Which it is. Which is bullshit imoimoimo. Players like Bisu, Jaedong, Fantasy, Flash, etc, are losing the spotlight/front page spot for people like Iron (MC), Clare (Foxer), Zergbong (Nestea), and foreigners. What? It says at the top, Teamliquid is a Starcraft progaming new site. Sc2 as of right now is a glorified, corporate, greed-fueled cesspit of 2nd rate progamers in terms of playing level. Is that the fault of the players not being good enough? No, it's the fault of the game fundamentally having too low of a skill ceiling. Jaedong would never drop a single Bo100 game vs Idra and yet in sc2, it could happen. Disgusting hahaha, nice contribution, jerk :D First of all, Jaedong totally would drop a game to idra in a BW bo100. Don't be ridiculous. Secondly, the gap exists because BW is about something different than what SC2 is about. It's not "disgusting" that Idra could fare well against Jaedong in a bo100---it implies that the game weighs different skills differently. It does not automatically mean that the game is random and Jaedong's true SC2 skills are not coming through. Ok?
What skills are being weighed differently here? Luck? Jaedong outshines Idra in almost every way possible. Mechanics, strategy, everything. It IS disgusting that Idra could fare well against Jaedong, because he shouldn't.
|
On April 17 2011 12:46 Xenocide_Knight wrote:I can't believe the "give sc2 more time" argument STILL exists. + Show Spoiler +On April 17 2011 07:07 jenzebubble wrote:
You are comparing SC:BW with ten years of maturation vs. a game that has been out a year. You are comparing players that have mastered a game vs. players still figuring out how things work (Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell, 10k hours.) I understand that from a competitive stand point SC2 isn't where a lot of us would like it to be. That said, neither was SC1 at release. Were you around when 99% of SCBW competitive games were played on Lost Temple, because every other map stunk? Remember when River Styx was a ladder map? _River Styx_! Were you around for that? When the first big invitational tournament played had Thresh as a player? (Because they couldn't find 16 players with enough name cache to invite).
I think the OP lacks perspective. SC1 took a long time to become a game that could support high level competitive play. Were you around for that period of SC1's development you'd realize that the changes you'd like to see take time. On April 17 2011 09:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Good post, a lot of valid points but I as a whole, disagree. Comparing a game that players have had time to refine for years and years and years Versus a year of SC2 of course the differences and battles aren't going to be up to par.
When people find out how to maximize effectiveness of every unit, and they have to APM to do it, things will start shaping up and taking longer, you already see this with good players. If two players decide to just engage each others armies, of course the battle will end in 10 seconds, its up to the players to make the better decisions, not the game. Watch a good P or Z go against a Tank push in SC2, they don't engage it and die right away, the fight takes 5 minutes of the Zerg repositioning and trying flanks...
Give it more time... jeeze. Really, BW development was RTS development. That includes sc2. We didn't look look for things like micro pre-BW. But in SC2, everyone (and literally everyone) was scrambling to find out the next big strategy or play style. Just look at the sc2 strategy section. It's always "so and so's FE!" "TL poster's 1 base push!". The "give it more time" argument has been proven false so many times, please just do a search on previous threads. Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 11:44 ploy wrote:On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example? I certainly agree with you for the most part.. even though the thread has collapsed into a sc2 vs bw word war, encouraged even by some TL staff (not you).. I don't know about the mods, or anyone else, but I definitely think it's time for a massive sc2 vs BW war. Like a GIANT, ban/perma-ban most of TL war. I'm still pissed that I have to scroll through literally 50 pages of random, amateur tournaments in the "Upcoming events" in order to find out when the Winner's League Final is. Or that the MSL finals Featured News was literally up for less than 24 hours before getting booted off the front page for more amateur sc2 crap. We have a Sports & Games section of TL, that's where sc2 should be. Is sc2 better than every non-BW RTS? Probably. Is it good enough to suddenly take up like 80% of teamliquid? Idk, but it hasn't been proven to be. So until SC2 can prove itself as a professional level game, I think it shouldn't be TL's main focus. Which it is. Which is bullshit imoimoimo. Players like Bisu, Jaedong, Fantasy, Flash, etc, are losing the spotlight/front page spot for people like Iron (MC), Clare (Foxer), Zergbong (Nestea), and foreigners. What? It says at the top, Teamliquid is a Starcraft progaming new site. Sc2 as of right now is a glorified, corporate, greed-fueled cesspit of 2nd rate progamers in terms of playing level. Is that the fault of the players not being good enough? No, it's the fault of the game fundamentally having too low of a skill ceiling. Jaedong would never drop a single Bo100 game vs Idra and yet in sc2, it could happen. Disgusting
If there ever was a BW vs SC2 TL war, you'll be the first to go.
|
I agree entirely. Anyone who comes into the Starcraft 2 section of the board and gives a gigantic rant that boils down to "Starcraft 2 sucks and no one who plays it is any good or should have any pride in themselves" should be banned, just like anyone who went into the BW section and posted a thread about how BW sucked and SC2 was so much better would be rightfully banned.
The OP's post doesn't say SC2 sucks at all. You might want to re-read it if you didn't catch that.
Fortunately, I don't make the rules. But I've love to see one of these BW hipsters go up to Ret or Jinro or MC, and say that all their time spent practicing is worthless because there's no skill involved at all. I wonder what kind of reaction they get.
Ret, for one, has said that the game has a much lower skill ceiling before.
|
On April 17 2011 13:15 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +I agree entirely. Anyone who comes into the Starcraft 2 section of the board and gives a gigantic rant that boils down to "Starcraft 2 sucks and no one who plays it is any good or should have any pride in themselves" should be banned, just like anyone who went into the BW section and posted a thread about how BW sucked and SC2 was so much better would be rightfully banned. The OP's post doesn't say SC2 sucks at all. You might want to re-read it if you didn't catch that. Show nested quote +Fortunately, I don't make the rules. But I've love to see one of these BW hipsters go up to Ret or Jinro or MC, and say that all their time spent practicing is worthless because there's no skill involved at all. I wonder what kind of reaction they get. Ret, for one, has said that the game has a much lower skill ceiling before.
I was referring to Xenocide. OP doesn't explicitly say SC2 is bad (though it's certainly implied).
|
I doubt Blizzard will introduce any mindblowingingly awesome units for Heart of the Swarm and/or the expansion after that. It will be really hard to come up with something innovative that will actually work in the existing SC2 framework. The fluid modern game engine of SC2 doesn't seem like it could simply incorporate BW-esque mechanics and unit behaviour (e.g. mine-sniping, reaver scarabs). I think the SC2:BW mod demonstrates this. BW was a total fluke that resulted from the limitations of technology of the time. Simply put, the AI is too smart in SC2.
Adding units like siege tanks that prevent the snowball effect and allow for the game flow described in the OP would probably work, but they probably would just be boring units that would essentially be Zerg and Protoss versions of siege tanks because, as I mentioned, it would be really hard to come up with something innovative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
