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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP.
i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering.
I completely agree that SC2 is lacking the flair that some games have. I'm not complaining that SC2 isnt BW, but I really miss the fact that in BW games, once you pass the midgame, there is CONSTANT action. So much that the obs has to pick and choose which battles to show.
SC2 has so much waiting around because of the clumping ability combined with the plethora of 1 dimensional ranged units. When every unit can attack at once (thanks to clumping), having balls of ranged units fighting balls of other ranged units makes spliting up your units a much worse idea than in BW. It is extremely hard to hold off the opponents army if you are sending small counter attacks to one or two of his expos (a move that SHOULD be rewarded).
Yes there are multi pronged attacks in sc2, but if the opponent is outplayed and out of position, they can counter/base trade, and it becomes more of a coin flip than it should be in my opinion. I think SC2 has a bunch of little (and hard to see) problems. But clumping is a huge one.
Oh and <3 mahnini. I can't believe i didn't recognize you on ladder. Infestors OP.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP.
i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering.
I still think that your list of cool BW stuff is a moot point due to there being loads of cool SC2 stuff happening in games also like some of the stuff i listed. I guess there's alot of games where players just attack eachother, but it seems like we see that less and less as the players improve. That list bugs me cause it more or less reads "Please reply with counter argument in favor of SC2!", it might just be me though.
I agree with the positional play and slowing down game pace and i hope we get more of those kinds of abilities/units in the expansions.
taken into context i dont think it is at all. think about what a player could do with the bw unit and what the player can do with the sc2 unit. some of them might not make sense like dragoon vs stalker unless you've have some bw experience but i think they are still valid examples of player-unit interaction.
I wonder if SC1 or BW had just come out last July if we would be seeing similar threads - like if people thought the same way about it during its first year.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP.
i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering.
I completely agree that SC2 is lacking the flair that some games have. I'm not complaining that SC2 isnt BW, but I really miss the fact that in BW games, once you pass the midgame, there is CONSTANT action. So much that the obs has to pick and choose which battles to show.
SC2 has so much waiting around because of the clumping ability combined with the plethora of 1 dimensional ranged units. When every unit can attack at once (thanks to clumping), having balls of ranged units fighting balls of other ranged units makes spliting up your units a much worse idea than in BW. It is extremely hard to hold off the opponents army if you are sending small counter attacks to one or two of his expos (a move that SHOULD be rewarded).
Yes there are multi pronged attacks in sc2, but if the opponent is outplayed and out of position, they can counter/base trade, and it becomes more of a coin flip than it should be in my opinion. I think SC2 has a bunch of little (and hard to see) problems. But clumping is a huge one.
You are also punished for clumping units i.e. siege tanks, thors, hellion, baneling, col, storm(to some degree),ultra, ghost etc . Concaves are much more desirable.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP.
i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering.
I completely agree that SC2 is lacking the flair that some games have. I'm not complaining that SC2 isnt BW, but I really miss the fact that in BW games, once you pass the midgame, there is CONSTANT action. So much that the obs has to pick and choose which battles to show.
SC2 has so much waiting around because of the clumping ability combined with the plethora of 1 dimensional ranged units. When every unit can attack at once (thanks to clumping), having balls of ranged units fighting balls of other ranged units makes spliting up your units a much worse idea than in BW. It is extremely hard to hold off the opponents army if you are sending small counter attacks to one or two of his expos (a move that SHOULD be rewarded).
Yes there are multi pronged attacks in sc2, but if the opponent is outplayed and out of position, they can counter/base trade, and it becomes more of a coin flip than it should be in my opinion. I think SC2 has a bunch of little (and hard to see) problems. But clumping is a huge one.
You are also punished for clumping units i.e. siege tanks, thors, hellion, baneling, col, storm(to some degree),ultra . Concaves are much more desirable.
Correct. Not really what I'm talking about though. I mean clumping as in "fitting your entire army into 1 screen frame and all your units are in range of enemy units." This makes the game very 1 dimensional. If there was less clumping and less units could get in range of enemy units, you could actually be rewarded for attacking many places at once. That makes the game more fun to watch, and it takes more skill
Im getting sick of the blob vs blob that sc2 can sometimes turn into. The balls are too powerfull and too easy to control. We need masively destructive AOE or something to force people to spread more.
The control group limitation + bad pathing really made what in the end I loved about sc2. But I can't see it ever implemented in SC2. Its just annoying to play. but amazing to watch.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
This maybe?
"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."
So you get excited watching people play checkers, that's nice.
On April 18 2011 06:41 drcatellino wrote: Getting quite tired with the BW nostalgia. I wish we could point out SC2 problems without having to constantly refer to it's predecessor.
On April 18 2011 06:41 drcatellino wrote: Getting quite tired with the BW nostalgia. I wish we could point out SC2 problems without having to constantly refer to it's predecessor.
You are on the world biggest Starcraft Community site -_-. Its the least you could expect.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP.
i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering.
I still think that your list of cool BW stuff is a moot point due to there being loads of cool SC2 stuff happening in games also like some of the stuff i listed. I guess there's alot of games where players just attack eachother, but it seems like we see that less and less as the players improve. That list bugs me cause it more or less reads "Please reply with counter argument in favor of SC2!", it might just be me though.
I agree with the positional play and slowing down game pace and i hope we get more of those kinds of abilities/units in the expansions.
taken into context i dont think it is at all. think about what a player could do with the bw unit and what the player can do with the sc2 unit. some of them might not make sense like dragoon vs stalker unless you've have some bw experience but i think they are still valid examples of player-unit interaction.
Examples of similar play to Star2
It works against Terran also if they gas less expand
On April 18 2011 06:41 drcatellino wrote: Getting quite tired with the BW nostalgia. I wish we could point out SC2 problems without having to constantly refer to it's predecessor.
BW is the standard to which we hold SCII, and for good reason too.
I haven't watched sc2 in a while but after today's tsl games I was extremely disappointed. The quality of the games has not seemed to have improved at all since the beta. There was one game where the protoss randomly attacked like 8 minutes in with like a 30 supply army, the terran had like a 20 supply army and the protoss immediately won the game. Ridiculous. There is definitely truth in what the OP was saying - SC2 really needs to have that defenders advantage thats in broodwar.
On April 18 2011 06:41 drcatellino wrote: Getting quite tired with the BW nostalgia. I wish we could point out SC2 problems without having to constantly refer to it's predecessor.
You gotta see where you started to really see how things have come along to the point you are at right now. Have things improved? If so in what ways? If not then what went wrong?
On April 18 2011 07:04 iamho wrote: I haven't watched sc2 in a while but after today's tsl games I was extremely disappointed. The quality of the games has not seemed to have improved at all since the beta. There was one game where the protoss randomly attacked like 8 minutes in with like a 30 supply army, the terran had like a 20 supply army and the protoss immediately won the game. Ridiculous. There is definitely truth in what the OP was saying - SC2 really needs to have that defenders advantage thats in broodwar.
The GoOdy games were not really examples of exemplary play.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP.
i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering.
I still think that your list of cool BW stuff is a moot point due to there being loads of cool SC2 stuff happening in games also like some of the stuff i listed. I guess there's alot of games where players just attack eachother, but it seems like we see that less and less as the players improve. That list bugs me cause it more or less reads "Please reply with counter argument in favor of SC2!", it might just be me though.
I agree with the positional play and slowing down game pace and i hope we get more of those kinds of abilities/units in the expansions.
taken into context i dont think it is at all. think about what a player could do with the bw unit and what the player can do with the sc2 unit. some of them might not make sense like dragoon vs stalker unless you've have some bw experience but i think they are still valid examples of player-unit interaction.
Okay, I think I FINALLY get what you are driving at. I am really not sure how they will ever design and implement units complex enough to ever attain such a similar interaction as in BW due to its limited mechanics but who knows Blizzard just might figure something out.
If you so desire to leave the OP as is, at least consider adding a summary at the end specifically stating you "want units created/altered that will require similar interaction as BW while maintaining the streamlined mechanics of SC2." I think that would do this thread a lot of good.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
This maybe?
"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."
So you get excited watching people play checkers, that's nice.
Great post.
You missed the point by a mile. What Footler is saying is that only reason why people in BW had to micro their HTs so much, is because they lack the smartcasting. Removing smartcasting is pretty much downgrading useability of units like HTs in favor of more micro intense usage of the unit.
@mahnini
Have you thought about it this way; When players dont need to spend as much time macroing and microing certain things, they got more APM available to do other things like dropping multiple locations, managing creep tumors, scouting the map with idle units... list goes on and on. We dont see people doing as much stuff simultaneously as BW players, but that dosent mean that there isnt stuff to be done. People wont do this kind of thing until they haveto start practicing it to beat someone. If 4 gate is the best build to beat protoss, then sure, they practice 4 gate till someone comes up with something that counters 4 gate more effectively. Same goes for the play styles as well. *You are only as good as your opponents are.*
Thinking that you have already seen everything that SC2 has to offer is pretty arrogant to throw around for the whole SC2 community and begs for angry posts, especially when it comes from someone who should have authority. Besides, if in the end the only thing u want is more interesting units, then you might very well get what you want in next expansion.
Once again, the idea of "waiting for the game to mature" is the solution we should look forward to, wanting something to happen immediately is strange from a BW player/spectator, as your scene wasnt treated well at all for the most part of its existence. If you dont want it happening immediately, then i dont see whats the problem. Blizzard has always added new units in their expansions, i doubt next 2 are going to be any differend. They know that people like new stuff and in some cases they make it a huge selling point of their expansion. You can think about SC2 as barebones version for now, it functions but lacks alot of cool stuff.
Hell, for all we know you might get your lurker and reaver back in next 2 expansions... alltho reaver might turn out to be insanely powerful since SC2 mechanics would make scarabs notoriously smart about blowing shit up! No doubt we should downgrade scarab AI for the sake of spectators, right? I mean, its more fun watching a scarab bug next to a perfectly fine worker line while wondering if it hits it targets or if it just runs out of time, blowing up doing 0 damage! I know i got good laughs when i saw that happening. /sarcasm
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
This maybe?
"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."
So you get excited watching people play checkers, that's nice.
Great post.
You missed the point by a mile. What Footler is saying is that only reason why people in BW had to micro their HTs so much, is because they lack the smartcasting. Removing smartcasting is pretty much downgrading useability of units like HTs in favor of more micro intense usage of the unit.
@mahnini
Have you thought about it this way; When players dont need to spend as much time macroing and microing certain things, they got more APM available to do other things like dropping multiple locations, managing creep tumors, scouting the map with idle units... list goes on and on. We dont see people doing as much stuff simultaneously as BW players, but that dosent mean that there isnt stuff to be done. People wont do this kind of thing until they haveto start practicing it to beat someone. If 4 gate is the best build to beat protoss, then sure, they practice 4 gate till someone comes up with something that counters 4 gate more effectively. Same goes for the play styles as well. *You are only as good as your opponents are.*
Thinking that you have already seen everything that SC2 has to offer is pretty arrogant to throw around for the whole SC2 community and begs for angry posts, especially when it comes from someone who should have authority. Besides, if in the end the only thing u want is more interesting units, then you might very well get what you want in next expansion.
Once again, the idea of "waiting for the game to mature" is the solution we should look forward to, wanting something to happen immediately is strange from a BW player/spectator, as your scene wasnt treated well at all for the most part of its existence. If you dont want it happening immediately, then i dont see whats the problem. Blizzard has always added new units in their expansions, i doubt next 2 are going to be any differend. They know that people like new stuff and in some cases they make it a huge selling point of their expansion. You can think about SC2 as barebones version for now, it functions but lacks alot of cool stuff.
Hell, for all we know you might get your lurker and reaver back in next 2 expansions... alltho reaver might turn out to be insanely powerful since SC2 mechanics would make scarabs notoriously smart about blowing shit up! No doubt we should downgrade scarab AI for the sake of spectators, right? I mean, its more fun watching a scarab bug next to a perfectly fine worker line while wondering if it hits it targets or if it just runs out of time, blowing up doing 0 damage! I know i got good laughs when i saw that happening. /sarcasm
I think both of you think I typed the psi storm bit. That is copy and pasted from the OP to cite an example because he asked for one.
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.
If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself.
If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread.
i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes.
i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples.
This maybe?
"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."
So you get excited watching people play checkers, that's nice.
Great post.
You missed the point by a mile. What Footler is saying is that only reason why people in BW had to micro their HTs so much, is because they lack the smartcasting. Removing smartcasting is pretty much downgrading useability of units like HTs in favor of more micro intense usage of the unit.
@mahnini
Have you thought about it this way; When players dont need to spend as much time macroing and microing certain things, they got more APM available to do other things like dropping multiple locations, managing creep tumors, scouting the map with idle units... list goes on and on. We dont see people doing as much stuff simultaneously as BW players, but that dosent mean that there isnt stuff to be done. People wont do this kind of thing until they haveto start practicing it to beat someone. If 4 gate is the best build to beat protoss, then sure, they practice 4 gate till someone comes up with something that counters 4 gate more effectively. Same goes for the play styles as well. *You are only as good as your opponents are.*
Thinking that you have already seen everything that SC2 has to offer is pretty arrogant to throw around for the whole SC2 community and begs for angry posts, especially when it comes from someone who should have authority. Besides, if in the end the only thing u want is more interesting units, then you might very well get what you want in next expansion.
Once again, the idea of "waiting for the game to mature" is the solution we should look forward to, wanting something to happen immediately is strange from a BW player/spectator, as your scene wasnt treated well at all for the most part of its existence. If you dont want it happening immediately, then i dont see whats the problem. Blizzard has always added new units in their expansions, i doubt next 2 are going to be any differend. They know that people like new stuff and in some cases they make it a huge selling point of their expansion. You can think about SC2 as barebones version for now, it functions but lacks alot of cool stuff.
Hell, for all we know you might get your lurker and reaver back in next 2 expansions... alltho reaver might turn out to be insanely powerful since SC2 mechanics would make scarabs notoriously smart about blowing shit up! No doubt we should downgrade scarab AI for the sake of spectators, right? I mean, its more fun watching a scarab bug next to a perfectly fine worker line while wondering if it hits it targets or if it just runs out of time, blowing up doing 0 damage! I know i got good laughs when i saw that happening. /sarcasm
I think both of you think I typed the psi storm bit. That is copy and pasted from the OP to cite an example because he asked for one.
Yes i know you didnt originate that quote. I just didnt see a reason to type more into that silly matter with the wall of text i was going to make.
EPT
