| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
diLLa
Netherlands247 Posts
I feel they went the safe way with SC2 at the beginning to balance the game around core units first, to add the more funky units later on. Feel free to complain when the last expansion has been released and they still haven't fixed the major flaws in SC2 atm. Untill I'd say have patience and see in what direction the game will go. I feel the game is already in a better state than it was at release. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On April 17 2011 21:46 Iatrik wrote: Let me explain this VERY simple, because it seems to be to hard to understand. Before trying to unterstand, watch Mondragon vs. Zerrax in the TSL Ro32. Now think. You mean the game against a protoss who honestly admit he didn't practice, and didn't build any gateway units beside a zealot and a few sentry ? ( Zeerax didn't make even a stalker during the two games ) This serie is not a good exemple for a ZvP argument... It's like using Ret vs Naniwa to prove drops is useless against protoss. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On April 17 2011 19:32 Klive5ive wrote: SC2 is still a great game, let's not forget that. And with the bigger maps and the changes they've made they have made strides forward. Some of the OPs points are valid but some I have to say are completely wrong. A fundamental design flaw. To some degree this is true, but overstated by the OP. In blink stalker battles there is definitely a lot going on. Just watch Huk's stream for examples of that. But by removing Reavers and spider mines they did take away some of the exciting unit match-ups when really they should have built upon them much better. And the marauder.... what were they thinking?? It's just completely boring and adds nothing to the game. Do you know what game flow is? To put it bluntly. YES. Game flow is still very important. It's something that will only increase as players get more accustomed to the strategies in the game. The importance of map control. Boxer the master of map control shows why it is so important in his games versus Sen. Hasn't changed since BW. In fact with the game being so high paced and it being SO crucial to stop the Zerg economy early, map control is arguably even more of a factor on players minds in SC2. You've got to stop creep spread, kill overlords, block expansions, create tank chokes etc... Positioning and setup time. Watch July Zerg masterfully set up a flank to see the importance of positing and setup in SC2. What positioning did Protoss require in BW? Again there's arguably more to think about in SC2 with forcefields, templar, collosus, blink moves all on the Protoss players mind. Making sure his collosus don't get caught by long ranged air units hiding on the high ground. Player-unit interaction. Units still require great control to perform well. Stalkers are a brilliant addition, Zealot charge is better, Roach burrow is seeing some interesting use. Next you'll be telling me a sunken colony was more exciting than a spine crawler. Mutas are now more than a "make 12" unit. You can use them in almost different modes, spread mode, clump mode, harass mode, deathball mode etc.... "Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra? There's just no contest. " That's just completely silly, you've lost the plot at this point and it just seems like when an Old man goes on a rant about why the world today is so awful and not what it used to be. Mechanics were more than a skill gap. Have we actually seen a super strong SC2 player yet? I don't think we have. The best we have is MC at the moment. I don't think I look at any Zerg player, even JulyZerg, and see someone who gets the most out of his race. There's so much more potential for harass, flanking and general multi-tasking that I don't think this is an issue. Ultimately though they made fundamental mistakes with unit choices and have never corrected that. You don't drop the Reaver and the Spider Mine from your game, introduce Marauders and Immortals and expect it to be more exciting. These are problems that really can be rectified if they've got the balls to do it. Here's hoping for HOTS! Finally someone who makes good counter arguments. The funny thing is, you came to the same conclusion as me. | ||
|
Iatrik
Germany159 Posts
On April 17 2011 22:46 Noocta wrote: You mean the game against a protoss who honestly admit he didn't practice, and didn't build any gateway units beside a zealot and a few sentry ? ( Zeerax didn't make even a stalker during the two games ) This serie is not a good exemple for a ZvP argument... It's like using Ret vs Naniwa to prove drops is useless against protoss. Ret threw his units away, Mondragon didn't. You have to use your advantage. You just can't drop your opponent and expect to just win. The fact, that Zeerax lost so early is the result of his less Gateway Units, i agree. I get an advantage, by harassing. I don't win. Mondragon got an advantage, because he dropped him. Mondragon won at that time, because his opponent did not have enough. But I'm able to drop, get an advantage and win at a later point. Maybe drop to drop more. (Without throwing away units) Drop to tech or to expand a bit more safely. Just make sure, you do something, that let's you harass more while getting an advantage and keeping the Protoss low. A good example is HasuObs vs. Morrow, although Morrow threw away a loooot of units. + Show Spoiler + The only big mistake by Morrow: He tried to kill him right after he got a big advantage. As I said, Mondragon vs. Zeerax is just a example match , that should get you thinking. | ||
|
RinconH
United States512 Posts
Even in the last 2-3 months the gameplay has improved dramatically. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On April 18 2011 00:44 RinconH wrote: I agree that a number of things in the OP would improve the game but I don't agree with the OP that the "give it time" argument is invalid. Even in the last 2-3 months the gameplay has improved dramatically. because builds/knowledge evolved. not the gameplay itself. the "give it time" doesnt apply to what the op is about. when units and fights are one dimensional and lack dynamics then there just isnt much more too it. for example no amount of improvement on the players side will make the collosus a "deep,interesting" unit. | ||
|
BGrael
Germany229 Posts
| ||
|
RinconH
United States512 Posts
Just watched MVP vs. Ryung in the Teamleague... great match. | ||
|
Pixel.
Netherlands287 Posts
On April 18 2011 01:05 BGrael wrote: I just watched TSL Boxer vs. Sen, and TvZ seems fine at least from a spectators point of view. Constant action, long battles where the tension is slowly building up, mico in the form of mutalisks picking off tanks and stimmed marines defending, drops, etc.. BW had additional elements, like science vessels vs. scourge, but I think Sc2 TvZ is fine and I can see it eventually getting there. vP is a different thing, but the expansion could help with that? At least I find Sc2 not fundamentally flawed where it is not possibly interesting to watch, TvZ proves that for me. yeah ZvT is really great to watch and to play, the action never stop. but the zvp is boring to watch because of the style how the game match is played. And I still like sc1 more to watch, because the action never stop in the game always something to watch and those battle with lurker vs tanks. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
On April 18 2011 01:27 -_- wrote: The beauty of Broodwar was that every unit--from carriers to dragoons to probes--was a spellcaster. In Starcraft 2, there are two per race. I'm not following you. Probes and dragoons are spellcasters? Probes have barely changed from SC1 to SC2 so I'm not seeing what you're saying here. | ||
|
Mentor
Germany219 Posts
There is so much fighting for map control in this matchup with Siege Tank positioning, Mutas, Infestors, burrowed Banelings etc., exploiting immobility with Marine drops and Nydus Worms, alot of multitasking and a high micro priority. If ZvPs and PvTs look anywhere near the same in a year or two, I really don't think that there is any major flaw with SC2 compared to its older brother. I mean we're witnessing alot of changes right now as Zergs experiment with Speedling/Baneling and Infestors in ZvP and Protoss going heavy upgraded Gateway armies in PvT. We have so much more to discover in this game and I really like the recent "meta game " changes. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 17 2011 22:53 StarStruck wrote: Finally someone who makes good counter arguments. The funny thing is, you came to the same conclusion as me. This post is mainly ignorance, I was not a really good player at Brood War, but it was very, very different than SC2. Of course we are far from fully understand / controlling any race at the moment. But this does not change anything about his point of view. Just watch one or two good SC1 game, you will see what he is talking about: map control has nothing to do with SC2. Let's talk about BoXeR vs Sen, it was a great game, but most likely a game of back and forth between Sen's main and Boxer's main, with some drop on the edge. This has nothing to do with what the OP is talking about. Same about flank, just watch a game of SC1. I just can't give you the exact counter argument nor explain exactly what is different, but it is just very clear while watching some games. | ||
|
s3raph
58 Posts
I just can't give you the exact counter argument nor explain exactly what is different, but it is just very clear while watching some games. I don't mean to be mean, but doesn't this (and the tons of other replies similar to this) suggest that it's just personal preference and has nothing 'empirically' to do with game design? It seems a lot of people can't qualify their supposed logical arguments, including the OP. It just seems like it's boiling down to personal preferences rather solutions or meaningful discussion. | ||
|
Turo
Canada333 Posts
This is what I see in the very first paragraph. Then the rest of your post talks about how BW was more fun to watch, harder to play, more dynamic, and a better all around game. Nowhere do I see suggestions. This seems like a very thinly veiled BW > SCII, yet you go out of your way to say it isn't? | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 18 2011 01:30 TedJustice wrote: I'm not following you. Probes and dragoons are spellcasters? Probes have barely changed from SC1 to SC2 so I'm not seeing what you're saying here. It is a horrible analogy, but what he means basically is that every unit could be made more powerfull with micro and specific control in BW. He refers to the micro and control as spellcasters,or that is what I believe right now. Either way it is a horrible example/analogy. | ||
|
Turo
Canada333 Posts
On April 18 2011 01:53 Kipsate wrote: It is a horrible analogy, but what he means basically is that every unit could be made more powerfull with micro and specific control in BW. Blink stalkers, burrow roaches, marine spread, phoenix harass, muta harass, infestors, FF's, storms, feedback, snipes, emps, etc... There is a shitload of micro to be had in SCII.. If you don't think so, try dropping in 3-4 places at once. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 18 2011 01:49 s3raph wrote: I don't mean to be mean, but doesn't this (and the tons of other replies similar to this) suggest that it's just personal preference and has nothing 'empirically' to do with game design? It seems a lot of people can't qualify their supposed logical arguments, including the OP. It just seems like it's boiling down to personal preferences rather solutions or meaningful discussion. It's more like there are too many difference to be exactly describe in a few line, and I don't have the time nor the knowledge / language to do that (english is not my main  ).It has a lot to do with the flaw of BW as an old game with sucky interface and questionnable unit pathing. I think it has also a lot to do with the maps and the speed of every units. The easier way is to just see a bunch of SC1 legendary games, and you will see it yourself. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 18 2011 01:57 Turo wrote: Blink stalkers, burrow roaches, marine spread, phoenix harass, muta harass, infestors, FF's, storms, feedback, snipes, emps, etc... There is a shitload of micro to be had in SCII.. If you don't think so, try dropping in 3-4 places at once. I didn't say there was not, I was just telling him what that poster most likely meant, however on that note while it is true that the above stated requires micro, the amount of micro capabilites and effectivness of it is undoubtly larger in BW. both games have micro, once just has more then the other. Either way, it is hard to explain all these BW magic without having watched a BW VOD, if you really want to understand what we think is so magic about it, take a few minutes or hours to watch some BW vods. FPvods if you wan't to be amazed and frankly a bit disturbed(HOW IS HE DOING THAT?). | ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
I feel like the mechanics also contribute to the problem. Khaydarin Amulet "insta-storm" wouldn't be as much of a problem, and Colossi would be more strategical, if units in a control group didn't instantly ball and clump together. But I think there's a fine line between the mechanics of the game being so hard you're fighting the AI, and being so easy that you can do anything you want with your units with marginal skill. MBS and auto-mine aren't problems--I don't think the game should be harder because you can click more for redundancies like building units. But smart-casting, infinite control groups, and units auto clumping? Those are more debatable. At any rate, . BW 200 supply battles took long and seemed larger, and I feel like that element is missing in SC2--large battles end in seconds. I feel like something should be done about that in future expansions. TvT and TvZ are great, dynamic match-ups. Some people call TvT boring, but it's more than just getting to 200 supply and 1aing like the current state of PvZ. There are drops, flanks, positional strategies, timing pushes, and an overall bigger layer of depth than "unit vs unit". Even PvT is sometimes like this. I feel like PvZ has the potential to be like this (previous analogy), but as of now it has the "both races trying to get to 200 supply and 1a" feel that's very frustrating as a spectator. Still, SC2 is a great game, and it's improved drastically even over the past months. I don't doubt that the game will evolve, and things like positioning, game flow, and map control become more prevalent. | ||
| ||
|
|
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
AI Arena Tournament
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
