EPTOf course there are examples of micro in sc2.. they're all just insanely easy by comparison.
[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 37
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
Of course there are examples of micro in sc2.. they're all just insanely easy by comparison. | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:30 PJA wrote: Well you are trying to say that SC2 is lacking in some positional element that BW possesses, but current developments point to the fact that perhaps that is at least partially due to the game not being figured out yet, not an inherent design flaw. And yet you want to claim that it is due to an inherent design flaw, and downplay the fact that BW is more developed. Infestors have been used defensively since beta in zvt. I think any new developments you're referring to are in zvp and that is because of the patch buff. | ||
|
EscPlan9
United States2777 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:05 billyX333 wrote: <snip> I think three good posts illustrate some worries I have with the direction of sc2 going forward into the future: The power overwhelming one, this one, and lalush's post. I still love BW and SC2. I play both in my free time. Even though I think BW is the superior game, I still feel SC2 is by far the 2nd best RTS ever created. I never read that Power Overwhelming thread until now. I think it is extremely relevant to what is being mentioned here by OP: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=120471 I advise everyone to check it out or revisit it. OP here gave me a whole new perspective on what SC2 was lacking that I wasn't able to put into words. The OP in Power Overwhelming helped me realize more about what SC2 is lacking in its current state. Most noteably, there aren't many game changing units to help make comebacks more likely, and when there are, too many people demand it to be nerfed rather than learn how to deal with it. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:33 billyX333 wrote: Infestors have been used defensively since beta in zvt. I think any new developments you're referring to are in zvp and that is because of the patch buff. They've been used defensively in ZvT since the beta, but if you think they've been used as extensively as recently or that it's entirely due to the buff you are incorrect. Even ignoring explicit counterexamples, the fact that you admit that the game is far from figured out and yet are so adamant that lack of positional elements are due to design flaws and not lack of player skill seems unreasonable. | ||
|
suejak
Japan545 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:32 3xiLe wrote: I hate this argument. I cannot emphasize this enough, yet it is the main counter argument. There was only 3 years of BALANCE patching for BW. If you add up experience of game design/balancing WoL should be PERFECTLY balanced by now, after a year of design. The players also knew NOTHING about basic RTS fundamentals, and were less experienced mechanically. What builds the creative strategies and multiple timings are the positioning/spacing abilities/skills that a lot of us think is missing (and is not making the game we think SC2 should and can become) but cant with its latest design, it would have to be a MAJOR overhaull. What on earth makes you think bw "design knowledge" would translate directly into sc2...? The design teams aren't even the same. This is a bizarre and obviously wrong argument. | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:38 PJA wrote: They've been used defensively in ZvT since the beta, but if you think they've been used as extensively as recently or that it's entirely due to the buff you are incorrect. Even ignoring explicit counterexamples, the fact that you admit that the game is far from figured out and yet are so adamant that lack of positional elements are due to design flaws and not lack of player skill seems unreasonable. Well now you are speculating a little bit. I'm not exactly sure if infestors would be used as successfully now in zvp had there not been a doubling of dps and +30% dmg to stalkers. I also have yet to see very successful defensive infestor play completely control areas of the map in zvp so I won't comment on that any further until I see it integrated into standard play styles. And also, I wouldnt say I'm adamant but thats just what Im seeing right now. Until I see otherwise, thats how I feel. I dont see any units that control space defensively like mines/tanks or lurkers/defiler/scourge did and I dont think fungal growth is as potent a defense as you seem to suggest | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:58 branflakes14 wrote: Small maps are another thing the game is missing. I'm sick and tired of these huge "macro" maps with so much open space that positional play means nothing. Not to mention builds developed on large maps don't work on small maps, so at this rate we'll get stuck in an infinite cycle of nothing but large maps because people are unable to play small maps. At this stage in the metagame it'd be far, far better to have a ton of small maps, since safe builds developed on small maps will ALWAYS work on large maps, as opposed to large map builds, which won't work on small maps because of timings in distance. BRING BACK STEPPES. lol... perhaps you should watch some day9 | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On April 17 2011 15:02 puppykiller wrote: lol... perhaps you should watch some day9 Whether or not I watch Day9 has nothing to do with builds dependant on long rush distances not working on small maps and the metagame potentially stunting as a result. I also personally find large maps horrible to play on personally to the point where I don't really play the game too much anymore. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:58 branflakes14 wrote: Small maps are another thing the game is missing. I'm sick and tired of these huge "macro" maps with so much open space that positional play means nothing. Not to mention builds developed on large maps don't work on small maps, so at this rate we'll get stuck in an infinite cycle of nothing but large maps because people are unable to play small maps. At this stage in the metagame it'd be far, far better to have a ton of small maps, since safe builds developed on small maps will ALWAYS work on large maps, as opposed to large map builds, which won't work on small maps because of timings in distance. BRING BACK STEPPES. This is either comedic gold or insufferable sadness. | ||
|
tachon
Sweden40 Posts
People found out about "glitches"(this is arguable, but most stuff was not intented to be used like it was in competitive play), that added a huge skill ceiling to the game; it wasn't any boring skill like, spam A-button as hard as you can, but it was "glitches"/skills like wavedash, waveshine, and l-cancel that could be added up and create amazingly combos that you could practice for hours. The game is very fun, and it has a great skill depth to it. In 2008 a new super smash game was released, Super Smash Bros Brawl. In the new game, all the elements that made melee so good and a fun competitve game was removed, or dumbed down. L-cancel and wavedashing was removed, hitstun was reduced, making it almost impossible to do any combos at all, the game was much slower and floatier, and most importantly it was not fun at all, in my opinion. Because of all the hype it gained from the success of it's previous game, and all the NEW PLAYERS streaming in, the smash-community changed to primary gather around Brawl, despite it was a much worse game, in my opinion. Almost the same scenario happened to the starcraft-community, and in my opinion BW is the superior game. The only difference is that SC2 is good, but it lacks the magic that BW has; if I was forced to name one thing it would be the anticlimactic length of battles in SC2. If you are going to serious discuss which game is better, please don't use arguments that a game is older than another, that's isn't even a valid argument. I think this can apply to most things, music, books, programming languages, and games. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On April 17 2011 15:07 DannyJ wrote: This is either comedic gold or insufferable sadness. So is a 20 base map when players can't even fully saturate 3 at any given time. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 17 2011 14:58 branflakes14 wrote: Small maps are another thing the game is missing. I'm sick and tired of these huge "macro" maps with so much open space that positional play means nothing. Not to mention builds developed on large maps don't work on small maps, so at this rate we'll get stuck in an infinite cycle of nothing but large maps because people are unable to play small maps. At this stage in the metagame it'd be far, far better to have a ton of small maps, since safe builds developed on small maps will ALWAYS work on large maps, as opposed to large map builds, which won't work on small maps because of timings in distance. BRING BACK STEPPES. I disagree, strongly. The problem with the small maps from earlier in the map pool was that there simply was too much cheese on them, and the small size of the maps made cheese way too powerful, especially with the macro mechanics of SC2 allowing players to pump out units ridiculously quickly. Even GSL matches on these small maps would often be decided by who could win with the first push or cheese. Positional play was usually not possible because the matches would often not last long enough for that kind of play to become relevant. We have large macro maps because they were the norm in BW, and it has been proven that longer, more epic games are more likely to occur on larger maps where players aren't at risk dying to unstoppable one-base builds. Small maps just don't allow enough space and time for the kind of play that OP strives for. Plus, the BW metagame developed fine on the relatively larger macro maps that were quite popular in all the leagues. Then again, I can't tell if your post is sarcasm or not. | ||
|
uSnAmplified
United States1029 Posts
Macro mechanics like mules, chrono, warp ins etc have changed the game so much and i feel like its not for the good, on top off blizzard constantly patching the game and never letting people figure it out for themselves. With a majority of patches released are full of some trash changes that just cater to the whiners. Its boring to watch 1a vs 1a, and its aggravating to play and have this feeling that its harder to distinguish players as being better, it just lacks the intricacies that make a player better then another. | ||
|
AmaZing
Nepal299 Posts
 | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
The majority of complaints about SC2 from Brood War lovers is that it's too easy because the interface is about 100 times better. Finally, we get a thread that has a legitimate complaint about SC2, and has good comparisons to brood war, and everyone misses the whole bloody point. On topic, I feel like it's too soon to complain, because there are two scheduled expansions which should be adding more units and technologies for each race. Also, baneling land mines can control space, like spider mines/lurkers, although not quite as well. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
On April 17 2011 15:08 tachon wrote: This makes me remind how the smash-community ended up, and I think many smash-melee players know what I'm talking about. Super smash bros melee is a "party fighter game" for the gamecube; a game most people first didn't play competively, or even believed there would exist a huge skill barrier between "good" and "bad players. Because the game was popular and a multi-player game, people began to compete with each other; but the success why it became so good was that it actually existed a skill barrier that differed good players from bad players, in a big way. People found out about "glitches"(this is arguable, but most stuff was not intented to be used like it was in competitive play), that added a huge skill ceiling to the game; it wasn't any boring skill like, spam A-button as hard as you can, but it was "glitches"/skills like wavedash, waveshine, and l-cancel that could be added up and create amazingly combos that you could practice for hours. The game is very fun, and it has a great skill depth to it. In 2008 a new super smash game was released, Super Smash Bros Brawl. In the new game, all the elements that made melee so good and a fun competitve game was removed, or dumbed down. L-cancel and wavedashing was removed, hitstun was reduced, making it almost impossible to do any combos at all, the game was much slower and floatier, and most importantly it was not fun at all, in my opinion. Because of all the hype it gained from the success of it's previous game, and all the NEW PLAYERS streaming in, the smash-community changed to primary gather around Brawl, despite it was a much worse game, in my opinion. Almost the same scenario happened to the starcraft-community, and in my opinion BW is the superior game. The only difference is that SC2 is good, but it lacks the magic that BW has; if I was forced to name one thing it would be the anticlimactic length of battles in SC2. If you are going to serious discuss which game is better, please don't use arguments that a game is older than another, that's isn't even a valid argument. I think this can apply to most things, music, books, programming languages, and games. ah great first post... but one other diffrence u are forgetting between the two is that BW still has korea while Melee never had a country. BW wont die for a long time for this reason. | ||
|
DensitY
New Zealand74 Posts
I really REALLY appreciate the improvement made to the UI and controls in general from BW to SC2. I don't think anyone, deep down would really want the controls and UI impaired. Combat is a bit of a different matter. Sc2 is really really high paced, and once you get reasonable sized armies up things die _way_ too fast. I've had times where I've had a force out on the map, I'll be back at my base doing some macroing and get the alert on the minimap 'you're under attack'. I'd tap double-1 as fast as I can only to find my army gone.. Just gone.. Other times you'll have a large engagement and I'd be thinking before the attack "I'm going to get the most out of these stalkers and do some blink micro", well would be nice but after blinking 2-3 units everything else is simply dead. My APM is pretty bad, about 90 avg throughout a game, spiking up to 200ish during combat from time to time, but there are times where I think even if had 500 apm it simply wouldn't matter.. All the units simply deal far too much damage. I wonder if simply a flat 50% dps nerf to every single unit in the game would improve things a lot more, giving you more time to micro units out of storm, collosus beams, stim pushes etc. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5871 Posts
On April 17 2011 15:19 Whitewing wrote: Game quality should never be defined by having glitches, bad AI, or a terrible user interface that made the game require skill in order to play well, other than being a bad game for having huge glitches, a terrible AI, or an awful interface. The majority of complaints about SC2 from Brood War lovers is that it's too easy because the interface is about 100 times better. Finally, we get a thread that has a legitimate complaint about SC2, and has good comparisons to brood war, and everyone misses the whole bloody point. On topic, I feel like it's too soon to complain, because there are two scheduled expansions which should be adding more units and technologies for each race. Also, baneling land mines can control space, like spider mines/lurkers, although not quite as well. There has been a dozen of legitimate threads. They always get derailed, though. | ||
|
Tiazi
Netherlands761 Posts
| ||
| ||
