On April 18 2011 02:04 [Avarice] wrote: It seems like part of the problem is that some of the units seemed designed simply as "counter" units. Is your opponent going MM? Get Colossi and 1a, but if they have a lot of Vikings your Colossi get killed. No amount of micro will change this fact. It's not like Stalkers vs. Roach/Infestor, where if you 1a your Stalkers you'll lose, but blink micro can keep all of them alive and they can recharge their shields, but if they fungal then your Stalkers can't blink so they get hit by Roaches and die, so you need to stay out of Fungal range or kill the Infestors, and then maybe other units come into the mix (like if it was Immortal/Stalker/Templar vs. Roach/Infestor/Baneling drops) and micro is extremely important to winning -- no. It's just an "X counters Y and loses to Z" scenario which is not fun for a spectator.
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's drops, flanks, positional strategies, timing pushes, and an overall bigger layer of depth than "unit vs unit". Even PvT is sometimes like this.
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.
TvT and TvZ are great because of siege tanks (great defensive units). One of the main problem in my point of view is that there is no defender advantage in SC2. In a game, like SC1, where you have a good defender advantage, where you can defend your main with a few units, the game is played at the edge: it's all about gaining advantage bit by bit, taking expand and denying the expand of your opponent : that's strategy. In SC2, since there are no defender advantage, things are different: it's crush your opponent or be crushed.
So what are the points SC2 is missing? It seems to have all of those things, just easier. I've seen many situations (see TT1) where a protoss thinks they're the shit, a-clicks with guardian shields and gets facerolled by an army with vastly superior positioning. Why do battles seem so much shorter? Because control groups are bigger. Players don't have to individually order small groups of units all over the dame place. Sure, the level of skill required to play the game has dropped, but in my opinion the skill level of great players is still quite obvious. If they're able to use superior micro, positioning, and well-placed spells more intuitively and on a greater scale it's no surprise that a battle can end so quickly. I think as a sequel, SC2 is just like SC:BW only bigger, faster & stronger. If you disagree, that's fine, because I disagree, too... We can just agree to disagree.
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.
I've followed BW for a long time. Like, Boxer lockdown long time. I don't tactically see as many differences as you do (rather, I see SC2 having more unexplored space), and I disagree with user interface limitations rather than game design choices being the source of a game's strategic depth. But I accept it's my opinion and I can't argue that BW's mechanics didn't evolve from those UI limitations.
Personally, if we see BW-esque individual micro in SC2 with faster game speed, which I believe we will once more a critical mass of players reaches the upper most level (like where MC is), people will probably just continue to criticize the game. -_-; It's what a lot of communities like doing; criticizing without constructive feedback.
On April 17 2011 17:36 Boonbag wrote: I'm convinced the next RTS for Esports will be fan made, or directly designed by the esports industry once its big enough. Or at least I do hope so.
Team liquid needs to grow more and turn to game design !
will literally never catch on. Shit like this splits the community, makes it hard for people to transition from one game to the "PRO MOD", makes it much harder for the spectator who plays the regular game but might still enjoy the professional scene.
Pro mods are terrible for games. Either the default game is good enough, like BW, or it just shouldn't be competitive.
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.
I've followed BW for a long time. Like, Boxer lockdown long time. I don't tactically see as many differences as you do (rather, I see SC2 having more unexplored space), and I disagree with user interface limitations rather than game design choices being the source of a game's strategic depth. But I accept it's my opinion and I can't argue that BW's mechanics didn't evolve from those UI limitations.
Personally, if we see BW-esque individual micro in SC2 with faster game speed, which I believe we will once more a critical mass of players reaches the upper most level (like where MC is), people will probably just continue to criticize the game. -_-; It's what a lot of communities like doing; criticizing without constructive feedback.
Individual unit micro is not gonna happen. There's no need for it. There is not a single unit in this game that is brutally overpowering in the right hands but utterly useless in the wrong hands. Every unit is incredibly straightforward in what it does and is really easy (way too easy?) to use (everyone can do marine stutter micro).
Basically you have to look at it this way: Brood War e-sports grew out of a community of hardcore fans. SC2 e-sport is growing out of a mainly casual audience. The former group has no problem with fighting a UI or working really good to become somewhat good, while the latter wants to be good without having to do too much.
Psi storm vs psi storm? A psi storm in SC2 is almost meaningless. In BW, the beauty of psi storm was purely because of the mechanics required to cast it. I don't think there is any debate here. In SC2 smartcast forced a nerf on psi storm to the point where a single psi storm means almost nothing and it requires the screen to be carpeted for it to even be effective. In BW, sequential psi storms were extremely difficult to pull off mid-battle, but had a tremendous payoff. In SC2, not only is it not impressive to see 4 psi storms casted, it's damn stupid to micro against. Microing against a storm almost always means running into 3 more storms because it's so ridiculously easy to cast
I've been screaming this as loud as I can since I first screwed around with Protoss at release. I'm glad someone with more sway than me is seeing what I'm seeing.
On April 18 2011 01:50 Turo wrote: "So, I guess this is my advice to Blizzard for the upcoming expansions."
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?
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...
I had to highlight these posts because they (arguably) define the gap between the pro SC2 spectator/player and the pro BW spectator/player. To be honest, it sounds like the players who are ultimately sticking to BW (more specifically, the units and the meta-game mechanics) are still angry about how SC2 turned out and probably most importantly, certain units that were pulled from the final SC2 release in multiplayer.
"This seems like a very thinly veiled BW > SCII, yet you go out of your way to say it isn't?"
If the comparison of BW and SC2 is the argument (from micro comparisons to unit composition engagements, to this, that, and the third) then your trolling yourself without you even knowing it; Try harder next time to fool yourself into thinking that Brood War had to be remade entirely (which what your basically saying in the OP) to make a better game essentially. You state that certain actions proved more entertaining in the original game. Basically your asking why Blizzard didn't just redeliver BW to your doorstep and forget that the last ten years ever happened. Ten years of the Reaver, Vulture, Defiler, et cetera. and your telling me they had to come back in order for SC2 to be successful? I know you didn't just say those three units specifically, but you hinted towards that sentiment - you cannot argue that.
i think people need to read beyond the bw comparison and notice that i think certain aspects of bw can be transplanted in sc2 to make it a more entertaining game to play and watch. it's like if i said (i'm pulling this comparison out my ass) halo could be more entertaining if it had the positioning that CS had. then i list CS matches in which position was really important and played a large role in the game, but then everyone gets mad at me for wanting halo to be exactly like CS.
i mean if you think adding more positionally important units like the lurker into the game is making it exactly like BW , that's just incorrect.
On April 18 2011 04:09 mahnini wrote: i think people need to read beyond the bw comparison and notice that i think certain aspects of bw can be transplanted in sc2 to make it a more entertaining game to play and watch. it's like if i said (i'm pulling this comparison out my ass) halo could be more entertaining if it had the positioning that CS had. then i list CS matches in which position was really important and played a large role in the game, but then everyone gets mad at me for wanting halo to be exactly like CS.
i mean if you think adding more positionally important units like the lurker into the game is making it exactly like BW , that's just incorrect.
I agree. It's like people see the words "Brood War" as some filthy swear word because they can't get over the fact that people are going to compare the two games.
There's nothing wrong with comparing BW to SC2. In fact, it's important that people compare the two because they are both extremely similar on a fundamental level. If we want SC2 to be an awesome e-Sport, then it's only natural to see what BW did right and try to at least learn from it. I fail to see how SC2 could be harmed by having more dynamic unit relationships, and more micro potential. It's a sequel after all, and part of making a good sequel is to identity what the original did right/wrong and learn from it. We aren't helping Blizzard, SC2, or e-Sports by covering our eyes and ears and pretending that BW doesn't exist.
it's a slightly ironic turnaround in which i'm trying to provide suggestions to improve sc2 and everyone just attacks me for being a bw purist and at the same time argues for the sanctity of sc2 to not be like bw.
Not saying your OP wasn't well though out. I just don't believe you are completely 'over' (described in only one word) Brood War and were ever prepared to play or watch another game as a replacement. I think it's okay dude. Don't get offended, you got ballsy and posted about a largely debated argument between the older generation of StarCraft players.
... and remember, not everyone is saying: "HEY, BW still exists if you want to play it, oldie" as a response to your argument. But you really have to ask yourself if your just not realizing the actual comparisons you have to make and what was actually translated into SC2 as far as continuations of good game play mechanics and so forth. You state things that if replicated, your lose out on an entirely new game. You sound more suited for mod creations if this is such a huge dilemma. And if it was so popular (your apparent view point), then why hasn't there been such a practice by the masses - like the masses not playing the ladder or a HUGE surplus in SC1 style maps on b.net 2.0 et cetera?
NOTE: I know there are SC1 conversions but there isn't enough to make a solid argument.
On April 18 2011 01:50 Turo wrote: "So, I guess this is my advice to Blizzard for the upcoming expansions."
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?
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...
I had to highlight these posts because they (arguably) define the gap between pro SC2 spectators and pro BW players. Tbh it sounds like the players who are ultimately sticking to BW (units and the meta-game mechanics) are still angry about how SC2 turned out.
"This seems like a very thinly veiled BW > SCII, yet you go out of your way to say it isn't?"
If the comparison of BW and SC2 is the argument then your trolling yourself without you even knowing it; Try harder next time to fool yourself into thinking that Brood War had to be remade entirely (which what your basically saying in the OP) You state that certain actions proved more entertaining in the original game. Basically your asking why Blizzard didnt just redeliever BW to your doorstep and forget that the last ten years ever happened. Ten years of the Reaver, Vulture, Defiler etc and your telling me they had to come back in order for SC2 to be successful? I know you didnt just say those three units specifically, but you hinted towards that sentiment - you cannot argue that.
No unit from SC:BW has to come back to SC2. But SC:BW worked very well as an e-sports from the professionals and from the viewers point of view, and that's because of certain aspects in the game, some of which mahnini mentioned. Why not learn from BW and change SC2 accordingly? SC2 certainly has the potential to become a great specators sport (for example Boxer vs. Sen TSL3), but it's not quite there yet. But that's not a problem (yet), because the game is still new and 2 expansions are still waiting. We need to discuss the shortcomings of SC2 now, so that it can get better eventually (and hope Blizzards reads at least some of the stuff the fanbase is talking about). I believe that SC2 can even become better than SC:BW, because BW is not perfect. It is just much better than any other RTS out there, including SC2 (regarding gameplay, not overall game design). But to make sure that SC2 will eventually surpass its predecessor, the community should work on this too, and that's exactly what this thread is about (I think). It's not about BW vs SC2, but about learning from stuff we already know. By analyzing BW, we can learn which aspects make RTS games good to watch and good to play. And I think Blizzard is thinking about this too, and in my opinion they have already come up with great solutions:
Macro abilities are great, I wish BW had them. They create new problems of course, but for TvZ it seems to work out.
Creep spread is great. It is a new kind of positional play, similar to tanks. I think creep mechanic is damn good, it really makes the game so much more interesting. It is actually a macro ability of its own, and it is absoluetly necessary even at medium level of play.
For my own ideas: I wish they would take away automatic worker mining, but I guess that will never happen. I say we can (and should) keep MBS and unlimited control groups if we give each race at least one additional macro mechanic. And I don't mean some random ability. Something really interesting and creative, like creep. And then introduce interesting units that are hard to control but give great benefit if you are able to.
If we do all this, I think it can work, and I really think SC2 can be greater than BW ever was, from the gamedesign, the viewer base, the skill ceiling, the professional scene, everything. I hope so! And I think this thread is a small step in the right direction. It has absolutely nothing to do with SC2 vs BW hate and everything to do with making the e-sports scene and SC2 as good as it can be.
On April 18 2011 04:44 NastyMarine wrote: Not saying your OP wasn't well though out. I just don't believe you are completely 'over' (described in only one word) Brood War and were ever prepared to play or watch another game as a replacement. I think it's okay dude. Don't get offended, you got ballsy and posted about a largely debated argument between the older generation of StarCraft players.
... and remember, not everyone is saying: "HEY, BW still exists if you want to play it, oldie" as a response to your argument. But you really have to ask yourself if your just not realizing the actual comparisons you have to make and what was actually translated into SC2 as far as continuations of good game play mechanics and so forth. You state things that if replicated, your lose out on an entirely new game. You sound more suited for mod creations if this is such a huge dilemma. And if it was so popular (your apparent view point), then why hasn't there been such a practice by the masses - like the masses not playing the ladder or a HUGE surplus in SC1 style maps on b.net 2.0 et cetera?
NOTE: I know there are SC1 conversions but there isn't enough to make a solid argument.
umm. i haven't stated anything that should be replicated other than underlying mechanics and have in fact discouraged specific suggestions in this thread. all bw examples were simply to point out the mechanics they brought to the game.
if you think adding underlying mechanics can make sc2 become bw, i think that is just ridiculous.
EPT
