|
On April 18 2011 22:07 osten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 21:45 Senx wrote:On April 18 2011 16:30 osten wrote:
I disagree completely. The two games can and should not be compared in any way (you can still play the old game and this is not a remake). Apart from baiting flame to the point you need to put a warning first, it is stillborn. When Warcraft 3 came out, not many people compared it to Warcraft 2, and the difference is less than you would think if you have an ounce of objectivity. If you want StarCraft: Brood War, play that. If you want Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty, design flaws included, play that. If you want something in between, make a mod, join the community in making a mod, make your own game, start a new handheld console business, you have so many options. What the fuck? You're saying we're not allowed to compared A SEQUAL to the original game ?? For what reason? Its a fucking sequal of a game made by the same company with the same concept, comparisons will be made. Since SC:BW is the most succesful and storied esport game of all time, and we're now playing the sequal of that game, I think its fair to make comparisons and be critical of its shortcomings. Also, anti-micro abilities has to be THE single worst thing about SC2 atm: Marauder slow, force fields and fungal: Abilities that are only satisifying for one side and that REMOVES your ability to micro your units. Its extremely frustrating for the players and very anti-climactic for the spectators. SC:BW had some of this but it often came with a downside, crystalize made units unattackable (arbiters high tech and expensive), queens were very high tech and niche with their slow ability, unlike the marauder. Well you seem like an unbiased dude. But yeah you can see in your post why we shouldn't compare the games. I really can't make it more obvious. You want a remake, not a sequel.
Why shouldn't we compare the games? Why not use the experience we gained from SC:BW and make it even greater in SC2?
All I mentioned was anti-micro abilities being awful and very anti-climatic for the spectators.
I don't want a remake, I like SC2 at the moment, but there are a few things that I mentioned above that really annoys me and many others.
Please state why you like these abilities so much instead of just putting words in my mouth.
|
United States22154 Posts
On April 18 2011 22:12 Axeinst wrote:
Its still the same outcome, moving while shooting. If its easier, then only ones who whine out it are elitists.
With this argument, why dont marines auto spread against banelings? it gives the same result as doing it manually.
Shouldn't larva auto-inject as well?
Also im tired of having to remember to go back to my barracks every thirty or so seconds to make marines, it should happen automatically. Same with mules and chronoboosts.
See the issue with "its the same outcome" ?
In a game that is fun to spectate we want things to be challenging, micro to be intense, etc. the path taken to get to the outcome should be as interesting to watch as the outcome itself.
|
This thread is not about SC2 being more of SC:BW but what SC2 can do to improve its play through what SC:BW did. Didn't we all agree that SC:BW and SC2 is a different game? Why are people overreacting so much? I don't get it.. There are soo many things SC2 can learn from BW. Is it because people are too afraid that SC2 will be too hard? I believe a game can be good to watch while accessible to newbies. There will be always things that Newbies can't do while pros can.
|
Well larva inject is indeed pretty ridiclously retarded game mechanic, which shouldnt be in the game at the first place. It wasnt in BW, it shouldnt be in SC2 either.
|
I might be very wrong here but, as i see there are 2 things being compared here
on the one hand you got SC:BW
a complete game that is (in the eyes of most people) balanced
on the other you got SCII
not a single expansion out, most people would agree its not AS balanced as SC:BW.
But SCII will allso get an expansion. Who knows what will be in there? Alltho i am sure that die hard SC:BW fans will allways find something that was better in BW and hammer on that.
I personaly enjoy SCII a great great deal as a player (yes i do suck) and allso very important for me: the esports alot more global, i can enjoy alot of content that is spoken in a way i understand. I and many many people with me think this is more important then moving shot.
|
On April 18 2011 22:17 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 22:12 Axeinst wrote:
Its still the same outcome, moving while shooting. If its easier, then only ones who whine out it are elitists. With this argument, why dont marines auto spread against banelings? it gives the same result as doing it manually. Shouldn't larva auto-inject as well? Also im tired of having to remember to go back to my barracks every thirty or so seconds to make marines, it should happen automatically. Same with mules and chronoboosts. See the issue with "its the same outcome" ? In a game that is fun to spectate we want things to be challenging, micro to be intense, etc. the path taken to get to the outcome should be as interesting to watch as the outcome itself.
It's not just that. It's the ability of a unit to become better through micro and skilled use. This means that a unit without any micro behind it can be very underwhelming where as one behind a skilled player can be fantastic. Also means that a defender can micro against such a unit because it requires concentration and micro from the aggressive player to use.
Units that don't have these qualities lead to coinflip type situations.
|
On April 18 2011 20:33 sleepingdog wrote:
SC2 requires surprisingly LOW SKILL to play quite efficiently. This is where I think most of the rage is coming from. When I lose to an 80 APM terran who executes an a-move timing attack, I wanna punch a kitten. Yes, I could've stopped it, but the mere fact that I can't "use" my superior multitasking abilities makes me rage. So you want that SC2 works in a way that you win with the skills you already have.
For me it looks like you refuse to master new skills, the right skills you need to compete in SC2 since you consider your existing skill somehow superior to the ability which can let an 80 apm terran win.
|
United States22154 Posts
On April 18 2011 22:20 Axeinst wrote:
Well larva inject is indeed pretty ridiclously retarded game mechanic, which shouldnt be in the game at the first place. It wasnt in BW, it shouldnt be in SC2 either.
Ok, why?
"It wasnt in BW, it shouldnt be in SC2 either"
is a pretty poor argument. Thors, chronoboost, vikings, mules, infestors, banelings, maruders, ravens, void rays, sentires, xelnaga towers, gold minerals and many, many other things were not in BW, that dosn't make them bad. I for example love how the xel-naga towers encourage you to move out to try to secure them, and gold minerals provide an interesting risk-reward mechanic on some maps.
If you are going to make a blanket statement please support it. ^_^
|
On April 18 2011 22:12 Axeinst wrote:
Its still the same outcome, moving while shooting. If its easier, then only ones who whine out it are elitists.
This whole "elitist" thing reminds me of the time I played WoW *cough*, when everyone who was saying that things are getting to easy was flamed hard as an "elititst" and someone who cant understand the casuals and so on. And from the moment cataclysm hit(which made things a bit harder to do) there was whine everywhere that things are getting to hard and u cant do a shit anymore. But the only thing those "elititsts" wanted was fun and challenge, so room to be good, while the casuals where just shitting on everything that was a challenge in any way, even when they didn't have to do it.
That means that I never understood this elitist phrase coz elitism is needed for healthy competition and by that not in any way bad...
|
On April 18 2011 22:16 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 22:07 osten wrote:On April 18 2011 21:45 Senx wrote:On April 18 2011 16:30 osten wrote:
I disagree completely. The two games can and should not be compared in any way (you can still play the old game and this is not a remake). Apart from baiting flame to the point you need to put a warning first, it is stillborn. When Warcraft 3 came out, not many people compared it to Warcraft 2, and the difference is less than you would think if you have an ounce of objectivity. If you want StarCraft: Brood War, play that. If you want Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty, design flaws included, play that. If you want something in between, make a mod, join the community in making a mod, make your own game, start a new handheld console business, you have so many options. What the fuck? You're saying we're not allowed to compared A SEQUAL to the original game ?? For what reason? Its a fucking sequal of a game made by the same company with the same concept, comparisons will be made. Since SC:BW is the most succesful and storied esport game of all time, and we're now playing the sequal of that game, I think its fair to make comparisons and be critical of its shortcomings. Also, anti-micro abilities has to be THE single worst thing about SC2 atm: Marauder slow, force fields and fungal: Abilities that are only satisifying for one side and that REMOVES your ability to micro your units. Its extremely frustrating for the players and very anti-climactic for the spectators. SC:BW had some of this but it often came with a downside, crystalize made units unattackable (arbiters high tech and expensive), queens were very high tech and niche with their slow ability, unlike the marauder. Well you seem like an unbiased dude. But yeah you can see in your post why we shouldn't compare the games. I really can't make it more obvious. You want a remake, not a sequel. Why shouldn't we compare the games? Why not use the experience we gained from SC:BW and make it even greater in SC2? All I mentioned was anti-micro abilities being awful and very anti-climatic for the spectators. I don't want a remake, I like SC2 at the moment, but there are a few things that I mentioned above that really annoys me and many others. Please state why you like these abilities so much instead of just putting words in my mouth.
Because of the reasons I said. Like you see, you say "Why not use the experience we gained from SC:BW and make it even greater in SC2?" Because improving something existing is a remake, not a sequel.
These "anti micro spells" you are stuck at, are a part of the new game, something to embrace, not hate. Has nothing to do with BW. The micro is completely different and more akin to WC3 if anything. It dosen't matter if I personally like these abilities, and I never said I did, they just are in a different game, so why would you compare them? If you like the old game, and not the new, play the old game, it's not harder than that. I think this thread and all our efforts, would be put to greater use trying to make a new game, not copy an old even if it was great. It has been proven over and over these days in all media; "Don't try to improve on perfect".
On April 18 2011 22:19 By.Fantasy wrote:
This thread is not about SC2 being more of SC:BW but what SC2 can do to improve its play through what SC:BW did. Didn't we all agree that SC:BW and SC2 is a different game? Why are people overreacting so much? I don't get it.. There are soo many things SC2 can learn from BW. Is it because people are too afraid that SC2 will be too hard? I believe a game can be good to watch while accessible to newbies. There will be always things that Newbies can't do while pros can.
Like you yourself arrive at the end; pros will always be better. It's already hard, since you can't be perfect. Why would anyone be afraid that it will get to hard, if it already is, for everyone?
Now, this is a good thing for any strategy game; to become so hard that it balances itself. But not only BW has this. WC3 does, all the C&C series does, but you don't mention any other game to inspire this new game, than BW. Just don't improve on perfect. Make a new game.
|
On April 18 2011 22:12 Axeinst wrote:
Its still the same outcome, moving while shooting. If its easier, then only ones who whine out it are elitists.
This guy Axeinst should really be banned or warned at least. I remember having an argument with this guy in that one thread "The n00b effect" where I completely roasted him in logic and argument, but he kept ignoring my points and saying the same shit over and over again. I used to say the same thing about "moving shot", but after one google search or one TL.net search (i forget which) i found out that its a much more complex mechanic than the phoenix "moving shot". Yeesh...
|
On April 18 2011 22:36 osten wrote:
Like you yourself arrive at the end; pros will always be better. It's already hard, since you can't be perfect. Why would anyone be afraid that it will get to hard, if it already is, for everyone?
Now, this is a good thing for any strategy game; to become so hard that it balances itself. But not only BW has this. WC3 does, all the C&C series does, but you don't mention any other game to inspire this new game, than BW. Just don't improve on perfect. Make a new game.
I mean by hard I mean hard like BW hard... Since some of the posters here seems to be concentrated to a mindset "SC2 mechanics will be like BWs" kinda mindset when we try and learn from what BW does.
|
I'll tell you what I'm missing most in SC2: timestamp in chat windows.
You have no idea when someone said anything, if its new or old or what.
Never mind BW comparisons, I like to remember BW in nostalgic terms because when I played it 10years ago, I had no ideea of what I was supposed to do or that I should take an expansion (which required a lot more management/micro and was tedious).
|
On April 18 2011 20:49 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 20:33 sleepingdog wrote:
Such a huge thread....many correct things have been stated, the only thing I wanna contribute is to simplify it the following way:
SC2 requires surprisingly LOW SKILL to play quite efficiently. This is where I think most of the rage is coming from. When I lose to an 80 APM terran who executes an a-move timing attack, I wanna punch a kitten. We all know that 80 APM necessitates worse micro and multitask, amiright? EDIT: Oh shit I should have kept reading. Do you really think that your ability to scout and adjust to your opponent's build is just as good as MCs?
Lol that's my whole, like 100% frickin point.... that the game actually doesn't REQUIRE high APM. Sjow is an amazing player with low APM. Why? Because high APM is NOT NEEDED (sorry for caps) to have good multitasking. This is exactly what I critizise, that being a "fast" player doesn't really help you until the lategame.
For my - also misunderstood - MC-example: In a "standard" PvZ sentry-expo build, there's literally NOTHING special you do until a certain point in time. Unless of course your opponent does something that indeed requires a special response, like - say - mass lings early on, a ling/bling build or whatnot. Of course, in these scenarios my gamesense is leagues beyond that of MC, let alone execution.
Nevertheless if both my opponent and I play the standard PvZ then there's nothing I CAN do differently. This is what the OP mentioned, what Lalush mentioned but what I wanted to especially emphazise because I deem it to be of the utmost importance. That you can watch your own - in this case PvZ - games and pretty much skip the beginning since you have no options to "outplay" your opponent.
Maybe I can make my point more clear if I use my warcraft 3-experience for a comparison. In wc3 games started out much more slowly than sc2, but with skill it was way easier to outplay your opponent even very early on. How? Simply by perfect execution and good micro. Example: the game requires you to kill neutral units to gain experience very early on. If you do this a) faster and b) more efficiently (losing less health) then you can put pressure on your opponent even with very, very few units. Maybe you can even kill something already and gain a critical advantage.
In SC2 - at least in current PvZ - I don't have these options. I can't move out because my opponent "might" just prepare for heavy ling pressure/harass. Then I'm screwed. So I get an expansion and macro up. In BW there was nothing wrong with that....why? Because turtling was ALWAYS accompanied by harassment. You just couldn't turtle and do nothing, games didn't work that way. You went reavers, you went DTs (here: sair into DTs) etc.
To get an advantage in midgame SC2-PvZ, the only thing I can do is to make sure I execute my build properly and hope that my opponent doesn't. How people could conclude that this was self-promotion is beyond me. It's exactly the opposite. I consider myself to be a very, very mediocre player. Nevertheless, SC2 has reached a point for me where even I with my mediocre skills feel like pros don't do something "better" or something "special" until midgame in a standard-PvZ. In BW and wc3 I was always like "what the...how the hell did he just did that???? I wanna be able to do this too!". I really miss this in current SC2 early to mid-game. I think this is also what leads people to rage much more, because it's so much harder to find things to improve in this stage of the game than it was; at least for me.
On April 18 2011 22:28 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 20:33 sleepingdog wrote:
SC2 requires surprisingly LOW SKILL to play quite efficiently. This is where I think most of the rage is coming from. When I lose to an 80 APM terran who executes an a-move timing attack, I wanna punch a kitten. Yes, I could've stopped it, but the mere fact that I can't "use" my superior multitasking abilities makes me rage. So you want that SC2 works in a way that you win with the skills you already have. For me it looks like you refuse to master new skills, the right skills you need to compete in SC2 since you consider your existing skill somehow superior to the ability which can let an 80 apm terran win.
Nice try, I won't fall for the bait.
I want SC2 to be a game, where a 160 APM player has OPTIONS to outplay an 80 APM player even in the early game. People like Sjow and Goody would probably still outplay me, even when using only one hand. But people of "my" skill-range wouldn't be able to keep up anymore, they would slowly but consistently fall behind. I want something "to do" beside not getting supply-blocked and not missing warp-cycles until the 10 minute mark. Is my English that bad, am I really making myself not clear enough on this one? I'm NOT saying that I'm superior to the pros, I'm saying that the current design of SC2 doesn't give you enough options to USE your multitasking abilities, to use your skills to outplay inferior opponents. Maybe my opponents - that I deem to be worse - would still beat me. Fair enough, then I've misjudged them. But with the current gamedesign I will just never be able to know, since I actually don't have these options.
|
First time poster but I will offer my thoughts on the matter.
First let me say HELLO TEAMLIQUID! :D
Alright, enough of that.
I have two points of view on this matter and can't really decide how I feel about them or which I like more, so I'll just name them both.
From one point of view, I completely agree with OP on the fact that SC2 lacks the depth of certain units that BW had, but I am not disappointed with it. While we need to keep on making the case that there is needs to be continuous positive change for the game, lets not forget that these games are an evolutionary process.
BW was an expansion. You can't go straight from beta to step 3. What I'm trying to say is, we can't just go implementing these things into the game all willy nilly just to make it seem more like Broodwar. Unit identities need to fully evolve and pan out within the meta game and only after that has happened I feel is the right time to start adding those game changing units like a lurker, defiler, etc. Just be patient and continue evolving the metagame and I'm sure with proper community support we can turn this into the game that we all want.
But from another point of view, I really disagree with the emphasis on physical actions being a requirement of good mechanics. Anything that can be done in game that can ease the burden of so much clicking is better. I don't think its catering to noobs at all to allow the selection of multiple buildings or having larger control groups. I think arguing anything otherwise would hurt this games potential.
From my opinion, this is a strategy game. The better tactician should win. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as programming and the ease of control gets better, some will say that this is catering to the noobs. I disagree with this sentiment because easing control for the user allows more brain power to go towards decision making and crafting a battle plan rather then constantly having spam buttons to scroll through your building production or checking the status of a building upgrade.
Hypothetically, lets say SC3 has a dual monitor option where you can have a 2nd monitor display all building queues and other information that you would normally see when scrolling through your building control groups. Would this be catering to 'noobs' or catering towards better decision making?
At what point do we declare that a mechanical action is a required element of the game's mechanics?
What if in SC20 you can plug a chord into your cerebral cortex and control the game via neural implants. Would this be catering to scrubs if you can directly will all your units to do what you wanted and play out your master plan exactly as you wanted? I think its features like these that let the better thinker win, and not the person who is better at getting down the routine/chore of spam clicking.
|
On April 18 2011 22:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 21:43 FeyFey wrote:And against this muta phoenix thing ... Yeah phoenix kill mutas, voidrays kill corrupters. Turn it arround mutas kill voidrays and corrupters kill phoenix. Its a bit on protoss side as the slow zerg units are needed against the fast toss units, but at the end the zerg will win costwise (and there is still the queen on the defender side for zerg) The problem is zerg players seems to be unable to get more then 1 type of units, especially for air. + Show Spoiler +really love mondragon for going muta corrupter, well and blocking of the voidray production, he was so close to bring down the toss air dominance with this I mean when i play zerg and see the stargate opening with phoenix voidray, i try to let him save his voidrays and go for mutas so i can fight with muta corrupter against his voidray phoenix ^^. (the harassment possibility for the zerg is just way way higher until storm is out and storm means <3 tunneling claw roaches) Well i love this lil corrupter in zvt as well to corrupt the thors so they die 20% faster  . The fact is that after a certain number of void rays... like 5 or something, Mutas kind of suck against them (assuming about a 2:1 ratio). Mutas are really not the best answer to void rays (although corruptors are quite good against phoenix). + Show Spoiler +Mondragon was nowhere close to a dominating air position. He has like 4 or 5 void rays left against waaaay more zerg air. It wasn't even close. Muta/Corruptor should work in theory, but in practice protoss air just dominates.
It what theory? Mutas are weaker than corruptors vs both the phoenix and void ray.
Since they take less damage from fully charged void rays you may think they would be good for absorbing their shots, but the difference is actually pretty small, since they have 120 hp, while corruptors have 200 and cost the same amount of gas, while gas is the limiting resources for your air army. The few phoenix toss has will easily negate whatever advantage you could gain from mixing mutas with your corruptors.
Mutas are one of the weakest units in direct combat in the game(reapers take the first place though), all their power lies in their mobility. Even a mothership wins against 5 mutas and that's a spellcaster.
|
On April 18 2011 22:50 By.Fantasy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 22:36 osten wrote:
Like you yourself arrive at the end; pros will always be better. It's already hard, since you can't be perfect. Why would anyone be afraid that it will get to hard, if it already is, for everyone?
Now, this is a good thing for any strategy game; to become so hard that it balances itself. But not only BW has this. WC3 does, all the C&C series does, but you don't mention any other game to inspire this new game, than BW. Just don't improve on perfect. Make a new game. I mean by hard I mean hard like BW hard... Since some of the posters here seems to be concentrated to a mindset "SC2 mechanics will be like BWs" kinda mindset when we try and learn from what BW does.
Well yeah, then I completely agree with you. It should of course be inspired by many good things, not just BW, and it shouldn't have exactly the same key points as BW, because BW still exists as a game, why would we want to overrun that game?
|
I think Zerg needs a positional defense unit like the Lurker. Baneling filled the splash role but it doesn't really hold a position like a lurker, and it offers no "skill" really (you just roll banelings at their army, basically) P has forcefields and T has tanks but Z really has no equivalent.
Smartcasting, MBS, automine, etc is never going away so you might as well forget about that.
Also, talking about Sjow "being amazing" with low APM - Sjow wouldn't even make it out of Code A, so don't act like APM isn't meaningful.
|
On April 18 2011 23:38 War Horse wrote:
P has forcefields
Just wanted to comment especially on that. Originally, I loved forcefields, I thought that this was gonna be "the" micro-intensive skill needed to get ahead, get small edges. As it is right now, forcefields function as "all or nothing". You either place them correctly and win (or stay level) or you screw them up and lose. Forcefields don't give you small edges, they are GAMEBREAKERS. This makes them very, very bad and I don't see any way how you can fix this.
Because if you took them away, then you essentially would have to rebalance the whole toss gateway-unit-arsenal.
Think about the vulture in comparison. Clever vulture micro would only "win" games outright if the user of the vultures were of insane nada-like skill. Otherwise, good vulture micro would give you an edge because some mines would hit, while others wouldn't. With forcefields it's different. This is, why there's the tendency to build mass sentries early on, because then you are able to spam the forcefields to be 100% safe.
|
On April 18 2011 23:50 sleepingdog wrote:Just wanted to comment especially on that. Originally, I loved forcefields, I thought that this was gonna be "the" micro-intensive skill needed to get ahead, get small edges. As it is right now, forcefields function as "all or nothing". You either place them correctly and win (or stay level) or you screw them up and lose. Forcefields don't give you small edges, they are GAMEBREAKERS. This makes them very, very bad and I don't see any way how you can fix this. Because if you took them away, then you essentially would have to rebalance the whole toss gateway-unit-arsenal. Think about the vulture in comparison. Clever vulture micro would only "win" games outright if the user of the vultures were of insane nada-like skill. Otherwise, good vulture micro would give you an edge because some mines would hit, while others wouldn't. With forcefields it's different. This is, why there's the tendency to build mass sentries early on, because then you are able to spam the forcefields to be 100% safe.
Yeah well said.
I really wish people would stop harping on stuff like MBS, smart casting, 1 control group 1a deathballs, and so on. It's a much much bigger issue that we're lacking dynamic give and take micro and abilities with interesting dynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
