|
On April 19 2011 12:02 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 10:37 Angra wrote:
On an unrelated note, I really need to comment on the idea that I keep seeing on these forums of "BW is balanced because it's had 11 years of balancing and development, give SC2 some time".
Here's the problem with that line of thinking: if SC2 were a completely new game, not related to Starcraft at all, breaking genre lines and on the cutting edge of game concepts, then I'd agree; give it time to develop into a good game. But it's not. It's a sequel. Blizzard have had 11 years to study the positives and negatives of BW and then improve upon every aspect in SC2. Sure, they're absolutely allowed to change lots of things to make it not like BW, but still make it far and beyond better than BW. But they haven't. They've disregarded so many things that made BW the game it is. They've regressed years with the release of SC2. The map Lost Temple was deemed not balanced so many years ago in BW, and yet what happens 11 years later when SC2 comes out? Lost Temple is still there, and to make matters worse, it's one of the BETTER maps in the pool originally. That is unacceptable. There is absolutely no excuse for Blizzard to have this much regression from SC1 to SC2. No, people should NOT allow SC2 years and years of time for it to be balanced before it's the game that we all wish it was. They should be demanding at LEAST improvements upon the 11 years of learning that SC1 gave to Blizzard. But instead we're left with a game that looks like it took a 2 second glance at BW, tossed in some units that looked kind of the same, and then slapped on a Starcraft 2 title. People are MUCH too forgiving towards Blizzard for their complete lack of progress with their SC series. This logic only works if Blizzard were "improving" BW without changing it at all. Since that's impossible, this logic does not work. SC2 is a different game. It's not Brood War. It's not supposed to be Brood War. Blizzard is not Capcom. They don't release the same game over and over and over, much as some people want them to.
they got rid of almost evrything that made broodwar good. change =/= making the game worse.
imagine id would suddenly take out strafe/rocket jumping of a new quake. it still could be a good shooter but the soul and a huge part of what made quake the game/series it is would be lost.
and then there would be the fans of that new quake that argument exactly like you do now.
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
|
hm, probably the option to change languages on your install. just modifications really! more clan related stuff so people can have fun with the entire game. the option to vote fan made maps into ladder play would be awesome. thumbs up!
|
On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
a.k.a tranforming sc2 into bw
no matter how you are trying to disguise it, you are basicly demanding that sc2 should become new bw with different skins
You want new bw? get out of here, because SC2 is totally different fundamentally already than bw
|
Okay just for the sake of argument, ground control was pretty fun, in that game we have controlpoints on the map that generate resources for us. What about a xel'naga tower-like structure that gives gas?
You have to be just as open to this as to include lurkers.
BW has many good points, but the best parts has long since been included in all strategy games. The ability to cast once with several casters selected, was included in wc3, is a good feature, and has been infused in a good way.
Why focus on what BW gives to this game only?
|
On April 19 2011 20:34 Kirigix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
a.k.a tranforming sc2 into bw no matter how you are trying to disguise it, you are basicly demanding that sc2 should become new bw with different skins You want new bw? get out of here, because SC2 is totally different fundamentally already than bw
read the post again. either you dont understand the difference between copying something 1:1 and learning from it or you just registered here to write bad posts.
On April 19 2011 20:49 osten wrote:
Okay just for the sake of argument, ground control was pretty fun, in that game we have controlpoints on the map that generate resources for us. What about a xel'naga tower-like structure that gives gas?
You have to be just as open to this as to include lurkers.
BW has many good points, but the best parts has long since been included in all strategy games. The ability to cast once with several casters selected, was included in wc3, is a good feature, and has been infused in a good way.
Why focus on what BW gives to this game only?
because this is STARCRAFT 2. not dawn of war ,supreme commander,c&c or warcraft.
and because broodwar still is pretty much the most successful rts ever and proofed over 10 years of competive play its quality. broodwar is the best competive rts AND sc2 is its freakin sequel.
ditching what made broodwar great in favor of stuff that made other games average makes no sense at all.
you could just as well ask why the next counterstrike wont have rocketsjumps or killstreaks.
On April 19 2011 20:58 Kirigix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:54 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 19 2011 20:34 Kirigix wrote:On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
a.k.a tranforming sc2 into bw no matter how you are trying to disguise it, you are basicly demanding that sc2 should become new bw with different skins You want new bw? get out of here, because SC2 is totally different fundamentally already than bw read the post again. either you dont understand the difference between copying something 1:1 and learning from it or you just registered here to write bad posts. You just dont get it. Sc2 cannot take many things from brood war without becoming indeed copy of BW with different textures and few different units. Either you are not very intelligent or you are desperately trying to deceive us with disguised arguments. SC2 is inherently different game than BW deal with it, if you wanna play BW then go play BW.
says mr 6 posts guy. you dont even know what you are talking about. how can you judge what is possible to transfer from bw and what is not?
but from your posting style, your aggressive tone /flames and your post history seems you are nothing but a fanboy troll anyways. will just ignore you 
|
On April 19 2011 20:54 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:34 Kirigix wrote:On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
a.k.a tranforming sc2 into bw no matter how you are trying to disguise it, you are basicly demanding that sc2 should become new bw with different skins You want new bw? get out of here, because SC2 is totally different fundamentally already than bw read the post again. either you dont understand the difference between copying something 1:1 and learning from it or you just registered here to write bad posts.
You just dont get it. Sc2 cannot take many things from brood war without becoming indeed copy of BW with different textures and few different units.
Either you are not very intelligent or you are desperately trying to deceive us with disguised arguments.
SC2 is inherently different game than BW deal with it, if you wanna play BW then go play BW.
|
On April 19 2011 20:58 Kirigix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:54 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 19 2011 20:34 Kirigix wrote:On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
a.k.a tranforming sc2 into bw no matter how you are trying to disguise it, you are basicly demanding that sc2 should become new bw with different skins You want new bw? get out of here, because SC2 is totally different fundamentally already than bw read the post again. either you dont understand the difference between copying something 1:1 and learning from it or you just registered here to write bad posts. You just dont get it. Sc2 cannot take many things from brood war without becoming indeed copy of BW with different textures and few different units. Either you are not very intelligent or you are desperately trying to deceive us with disguised arguments. SC2 is inherently different game than BW deal with it, if you wanna play BW then go play BW.
There are a ton of things that SC2 should have learned from BW, and these things in no way make it just a BW clone. For example, the importance of positional play seems to have been almost completely lost in SC2. There are a million different ways to incorporate this into a game without just copying BW.
Another lesson BW taught us was that having overpowered units is not necessarily a bad thing and can sometimes create a very balance game. It seems that in SC2 nerfing seems to be the general method of patching "problems" when maybe they should look at buffing something else. This method also makes gameplay more diverse and fun for a lot of people. Having said this, I think there are some times when things need to be nerfed, but Blizzard should be very careful when doing this.
There are a whole bunch of really general lessons like these that should have been taken into account when Sc2 was designed but weren't. And just because we are learning these lessons from BW does make something a BW clone.
|
On April 19 2011 20:54 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:says mr 6 posts guy. you dont even know what you are talking about. how can you judge what is possible to transfer from bw and what is not? but from your posting style, your aggressive tone /flames and your post history seems you are nothing but a fanboy troll anyways. will just ignore you
You dont know what you are talking about, you are so blinded by your own stupidity that you cant see your flaws.
I have played brood war for years in B+, i guess that gives me some legitimity.
|
On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
imagine id would suddenly take out strafe/rocket jumping of a new quake. it still could be a good shooter but the soul and a huge part of what made quake the game/series it is would be lost.
Funny that you mention that since Q1 doesn't have strafe jumping and the other 3 games don't have bunny hopping but turned out to be good (maybe even better in the case of Q3) anyway.
|
On April 19 2011 21:10 Teddyman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
imagine id would suddenly take out strafe/rocket jumping of a new quake. it still could be a good shooter but the soul and a huge part of what made quake the game/series it is would be lost. Funny that you mention that since Q1 doesn't have strafe jumping and the other 3 games don't have bunny hopping but turned out to be good (maybe even better in the case of Q3) anyway.
q3 improved the game while keeping evrything good alive. others came. and whats now played in tournaments? quake live, a 1:1 copy of 12 year old q3.
|
The reason why SC2 feels as though it's lacking something is because IT IS.
I will be blunt: Blizzard did not put their 100% into developing SC2; they saved their energy for HotS and the Protoss Expansion. By establishing that there is going to be a trilogy even before the core package has been released, there will be a little subconscious (or worse, conscious) nag at the back of your head saying: "Hang on, this is a cool idea - but why don't we save it for the expansion? The game is good enough as it is!"
And that is a logical thing to do.
What we are left with is a mess of bland and generic units, or potentially interesting units that have been nerfed into oblivion. New units like the colossus (#1 e sports enemy), marauder, hellion, thor, stalker, roach, void ray, banelings...guess what they all have in common?
Yes, they just kill stuff in a very uninteresting fashion. Anything that seemed moderately interesting (although not balanced as of then) were removed or made unusable:
Roach fast regeneration (encouraged micro, counters marines until critical mass)
Reapers (now not a combat unit)
Mothership (now the worst arbiter in the galaxy)
Warp-in storms
Battlecruiser ability array
Seeker missile...officially useless
the list goes on.
I for one think it is very boring to do the same things all the time:
Terran:
Make generic 50 minerals anti-everything unit, generic anti-armour heavy infantry, generic heal bus + transport, generic firebat on wheels minus stimpacks, generic anti-air fighter (because seriously who ever plans to use them exclusively as anti-ground?), generic anti-ground stealth fighter, generic "mammoth tank" that is a big robot...
only the siege tank remains the hallmark of grand terran strategy.
ZvP:
As P you used to make generic anti-everything unit that blinks, generic anti-ground robot that shoots doom lasers, generic anti-armour fighter...and win. While as Z makes generic tough ground fighter with low range, generic massable glass cannon, and generic anti-massive flying unit to try to beat that.
I know I'm missing out spellcasters, yes, but when spellcasters are the only units that seem to be interesting, then we've got a problem. Besides, how much spectator value does EMP, PDD, Fungal (generic aoe dmg + root spell) and guardian shield bring?
Now, I don't mean this as a balance whine or anything. I'm just saying the game is missing INTERESTING UNITS, and explaining why this is the case.
|
I've thinking about those flaws of SC2 since the beta and I really think fudamental stuff like that is much more important right now than having perfect balance, cuz they make the game fun and interesting in the long run...
About the Setup-time and moving out on the Map in a good position: This IMHO has a lot to do with the basically non-existant high-ground Mechanics. It was really important to set yourself up at a good position on the Map and even put turrets/bunkers/whatever there, cuz it gave you such a huge advantage. In SC2, that isn't the case to the same degree.
I've also thought a lot about lurkers in SC2. Although I don't think they'd be as good as in SC:BW, I really feel like without the stall-ability of the Lurkers to delay a push, there really is sth. missing in SC2. It's just not the same at all burrowing Banelings, cuz they only have a small AoE-range and with Fungal, you can't really delay against a slow Tank-push, cuz Tanks outrange Fungal. Also, Protoss is missing the very slow Reaver, which you had to kinda set up as well, by flying him at a good position with your shuttle.
Even without Spider-mines though, I feel that Terran is the most interesting race considering set-up, with very strong buildings you can place basically anywhere, tanks and slow-moving Thors etc.
Considering the Spells and the ability to micro AGAINST them, I really feel that Blizzard should start fixing the HSM, which could be pretty cool in that way.
Considering the other races, Zerg basically can only be safed by either drastically changing some Unit/Spell or introducing a new Unit, which will probably happen with the AddOn. Protoss IMHo needs some changes too. I've been thinking about some kind of Setup-time for Collossi for quite some time, maybe give them the option to only utilize the Thermal Lances after a brief setup-time or sth. like that...
|
On April 19 2011 21:06 mike1290 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:58 Kirigix wrote:On April 19 2011 20:54 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 19 2011 20:34 Kirigix wrote:On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
people arent complaining about sc2 changing stuff. people are complaining about sc2 changing stuff that was the soul and greatness of sc1/bw.
a.k.a tranforming sc2 into bw no matter how you are trying to disguise it, you are basicly demanding that sc2 should become new bw with different skins You want new bw? get out of here, because SC2 is totally different fundamentally already than bw read the post again. either you dont understand the difference between copying something 1:1 and learning from it or you just registered here to write bad posts. You just dont get it. Sc2 cannot take many things from brood war without becoming indeed copy of BW with different textures and few different units. Either you are not very intelligent or you are desperately trying to deceive us with disguised arguments. SC2 is inherently different game than BW deal with it, if you wanna play BW then go play BW. There are a ton of things that SC2 should have learned from BW, and these things in no way make it just a BW clone. For example, the importance of positional play seems to have been almost completely lost in SC2. There are a million different ways to incorporate this into a game without just copying BW. Another lesson BW taught us was that having overpowered units is not necessarily a bad thing and can sometimes create a very balance game. It seems that in SC2 nerfing seems to be the general method of patching "problems" when maybe they should look at buffing something else. This method also makes gameplay more diverse and fun for a lot of people. Having said this, I think there are some times when things need to be nerfed, but Blizzard should be very careful when doing this. There are a whole bunch of really general lessons like these that should have been taken into account when Sc2 was designed but weren't. And just because we are learning these lessons from BW does make something a BW clone.
SC2 is already too much of BW, if you bring those kind of things in SC2, then SC2 suddenly becomes BW itself.
So you guys, are not very intelligent and dont really know the game enough it seems.
|
I think that SC2 was created with the idea of more early action and shorter games on average. I played BW for a few years and SC2 since release. I don't have tons of time to play and get great at it, and so for me SC2 offers a much more fun experience. I don't have to deal with nerds that had been playing for 13 fucking years.
That said BW is a FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR superior game if you're a spectator. It's rare that you see something amazing in a pro SC2 match, and even when you do you think, I coulda done that. I watched BW BEFORE I ever played it. I don't imagine that I would ever have done that with SC2, but I guess there's no way of knowing.
|
On April 19 2011 21:12 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 21:10 Teddyman wrote:On April 19 2011 20:26 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
imagine id would suddenly take out strafe/rocket jumping of a new quake. it still could be a good shooter but the soul and a huge part of what made quake the game/series it is would be lost. Funny that you mention that since Q1 doesn't have strafe jumping and the other 3 games don't have bunny hopping but turned out to be good (maybe even better in the case of Q3) anyway. q3 improved the game while keeping evrything good alive. others came. and whats now played in tournaments? quake live, a 1:1 copy of 12 year old q3.
This is getting really off-topic but I guess I have to respond if you want to use this in your argument. QL is not a 1:1 copy of Q3, a lot of the damage values and even movement physics have been tweaked. The bunny-hop movement would be argued by many Q1/QW purists to be more dynamic and interesting than the strafejump movement. As for how this relates to BW/SC2, we have an example that proves that something essential in one game can be replaced by something else in the sequel and the sequel can still be an interesting game without "selling out" the series.
|
On April 19 2011 21:18 Kirigix wrote:
So you guys, are not very intelligent and don't really know the game enough it seems.
You keep spewing the same shit. Personal attacks get us nowhere. Guess what? Some of us play both and our wisdom is an asset. It isn't counter-productive. Take a step back to think what has been said.
It's dumbfounding how some of you can ignore experienced RTS players who try to help bridge the gap as they discuss what they believe could make the game better. As these boards have shown there are some things not worth discussing. One of the many reasons forum veterans and professional players decide to stay the hell out of shit like this. They know the results already. Nothingness.
Wait until the next RTS comes out and you fill our shoes. The new kids on the block will show up in droves and they'll be just as ignorant.
Experienced players get nada on this board. Instead, we get labeled elitist pricks when we're trying to provide useful insight. Likewise, some of you get labeled as (insert any derogatory term here). Eventually, a few of you will learn there are practical methods to our madness.
|
On April 19 2011 21:35 StarStruck wrote:
One of the many reasons forum veterans and professional players decide to stay the hell out of shit like this.
You said it, I'll just leave this thread now and leave you guys to dwell in your own fallacies.
User was warned for this post
|
You aren't a veteran or a pro. You are a scrub and there is nothing fallacious with what I said, so keep it up champ.
|
On April 19 2011 21:40 StarStruck wrote:
You aren't a veteran or a pro. You are a scrub and there is nothing fallacious with what I said, so keep it up champ.
You know it how?
You are so dumb, if I disagree at something then i am "not veteran"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
