EPT[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 60
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
In wc3 human had an auto-casted "slow" spell that slowed units. Orc had TWO units that were able to "counter" this by removing the slow-effect (purge and disenchant). Nightelf relied on focus fire, orc had a unit that was able to "link" units together, so the damage was partially distributed to other units. This countered focus-fire but was basicly useless vs aoe and melee attacks, since those hit "everything" by definition. Orc had a really funky, cool unit that could literally "eat" other units and digest them slowly, if you wanted to free them you had to kill that unit. Again, reactionary micro was required. Then orc had some spells that would make your units stronger (bloodlust for attack; healing ward for..well..healing). This could be countered by human spellbreakers, who could "steal" your buffs and transfer them onto their own units. Turn your spells against you. Also this could be countered by undead with the destroyer, a unit that was able to "devour" magic to gain health and mana. This way, the destroyer would be even stronger if you used your buff-spells, because it could devour your buffs and gain mana for a very powerful attack. This list goes on and on and on...I don't want to drag you all to far into the warcraft 3 universe, since this is starcraft after all. Obviously, since this is a much more economical-based strategy game, I can't require sc2 to be as micro-based and have that many spell-casters. Nevertheless, from all these aforementioned skills follows one very basic, underlying principle that both BW and wc3 followed and that sc2 massively violates. That it must be possible to REACT to your opponent's actions IN BATTLE and not just BEFORE battle. Let's take a quick look at sc2 abilities and micro. Guardian shield? What you gonna do against it...pretty much nothing. Force fields? Tough crap, live with it after they are casted. The only thing that would fall into this category are massive units walking over force-fields and roaches burrowing underneath them. Nevertheless the burrow-movement isn't strong/fast enough to counter-act properly, if toss has an observer most of the roaches die to AoE while burrowed. EMP you say? EMP isn't reactionary, you cast it "before" the battle actually commences. After it's casted, toss is screwed (or at very least weaker), it's not like you could "counter-act" against EMP. Fungal on your blink stalkers? Well, again: nothing you can do about it once you are in it. All that's left for you is to watch your units die to whatever. Vortex? Cool, watch all your units disappear in a black hole. Nothing you could do to prevent it, nothing, no spell you could use to get them "out" of it. Phoenixes? Yeah, lift-off is kinda sweet, but - again - a spell that can't be micro-countered. Watch your queen be lifted off, curse a little and wait for it to die. SC2 micro currently functions in a way in that every player uses the abilities his units have and crosses his fingers. There are hardly any options to react to the micro-management of your opponent which makes battles quite un-dynamic. | ||
|
Kirigix
Belgium15 Posts
On April 19 2011 21:43 StarStruck wrote: Prove me otherwise. Either way, I'm not wasting more time on beseeching you. I dont need to prove anything to people like you, you are scrub and probably be nothing else ever. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
I'm surprised you lasted this long. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
osten
Sweden316 Posts
On April 19 2011 20:54 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: 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. I don't know what you are saying but you did succeed to acknowledge all my points then break them the next sentance, and say my reasoning don't makes sense. Mr manners, what I said whas poorly explained logic. Not anything else. Why do you oppose it?....there is nothing! Okay is it maybe because you feel like i'm on the side of "SC2 is better than BW" I'm not. Is it because you feel I am your enemy in any other sense? I'm not. I feel like many people follow your style in this thread, not listening but spewing guts about what is wrong with SC2 that was better in BW. You can't do this, and call it scientific facts. You state "y is worse than x", when you shouldn't be able to compare them at all, and if you are able to compare them why aren't you comparing them to other games too? It's like you are in another scientific universe where your point is the only physical law. You come to a conclution that has nothing to do with what any one of us suggested or wished for, and say that dosen't make sense. Well yeah it actually dosent, very observant. Just accept that you can't get BW back, it is already here! Don't improve on perfect! Join the community in making a scbw mod!? Learn to adapt to the real world not a theorietical alternate universe. SC2 is here, almost everybody loves it, there is no need for warfare tactics, because you have no opponent. And then if you as many others including me, want to help SC2 get better, please just have that as your focus, not a burning passion to prove BW was better in it's days. We're not pinning the games against each other. | ||
|
gulden
Germany205 Posts
Progamers will make this game as exciting as SC:BW with their improving skill! | ||
|
Noorgrin
Germany116 Posts
whoops, i should read more then just the header first... then post :D | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On April 19 2011 23:15 Noorgrin wrote: tbh such threads are just boring... it's always the same with newer games released for old ones (such as RtCW > ET, Quake3 > QuakeLive, CS1.6 > CS:S etc etc)... it's always the same threads over and over again. I loved playing SC:BW (and it will always be a "special game" for me) and just comparing both games might even come out with BW > SC2 ... still (unless in korea) SC:BW time is over... SC2 is something new and the majority of the people seem to like it... and so does the media and the sponsors. Accept it, open up for something new ... or keep playing broodwar if u like it, but as i said about such threads... i saw them over and over again in more than 10years of esports... you missed the point of the thread. its not about reviving bw. its about making sc2 a better game by looking at what made broodwar so great. On April 19 2011 22:29 osten wrote: I don't know what you are saying but you did succeed to acknowledge all my points then break them the next sentance, and say my reasoning don't makes sense. Mr manners, what I said whas poorly explained logic. Not anything else. Why do you oppose it?....there is nothing! Okay is it maybe because you feel like i'm on the side of "SC2 is better than BW" I'm not. Is it because you feel I am your enemy in any other sense? I'm not. I feel like many people follow your style in this thread, not listening but spewing guts about what is wrong with SC2 that was better in BW. You can't do this, and call it scientific facts. You state "y is worse than x", when you shouldn't be able to compare them at all, and if you are able to compare them why aren't you comparing them to other games too? It's like you are in another scientific universe where your point is the only physical law. You come to a conclution that has nothing to do with what any one of us suggested or wished for, and say that dosen't make sense. Well yeah it actually dosent, very observant. Just accept that you can't get BW back, it is already here! Don't improve on perfect! Join the community in making a scbw mod!? Learn to adapt to the real world not a theorietical alternate universe. SC2 is here, almost everybody loves it, there is no need for warfare tactics, because you have no opponent. And then if you as many others including me, want to help SC2 get better, please just have that as your focus, not a burning passion to prove BW was better in it's days. We're not pinning the games against each other. what are you talking about? you said we should maybe look at other rts and not primarily at broodwar.and i disagree cause there is no reason for it. no offense, no sc2>bw fight or anything. i just disagree with your post :> | ||
|
Noorgrin
Germany116 Posts
On April 19 2011 23:33 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: you missed the point of the thread. its not about reviving bw. its about making sc2 a better game by looking at what made broodwar so great. whoops, i was like "tl;dr"... just the header tbh :D | ||
|
Insomnia125
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
4 months ago, nobody knew about marine spreading. Banelings were a "hard counter" to marines, such that if you saw a large group of marines engaging large group of banelings, it was a foregone conclusion. Then MKP showed up, and showed us that there is actually a way to micro marines such that they become cost effective vs. banelings. Now, when banelings engage a group of marines, you have no idea what will happen? Will they wipe them out in seconds? Will the marines spread perfectly and kill them? It is 100% micro dependant. Now, thats one example, but I don't get the sense that anyone is close to fully exploring or hitting the ceiling on this game. To give an example, 2 units, Hellions and Stalkers. Both are, in theory anyway, units that heavily reward micro. Due to the nature of blink and line damage, there are far more interesting positioning games that can be played with those units. But right now, nobody uses them effectively in army vs. army engagements. The *only* times you see Hellions being microed around, dodging like crazy to try to position themselves for one devastating shot before they're wiped out...is when harassing a worker line. You go in with 2-4 hellions, do the most you can, and thats it. Once there are more units, hellions fall out of favor, even against compositions they could theoretically be effective against. Why? They take so much damn micro. Misclick and they die in seconds, and hitting the maximum number of targets requires constant control. Nobody is doing this right now. Some day there will be a guy who micros hellions as well as MKP micros marines, not just for harassment, but as a central component to his army. Blink is similar. In theory, Blink is one of the most powerful abilities in the game. You can take advantage of differing elevations, bypass defenses, and most important--continuously pull stalkers out of danger, effectively tripling their lifespans and making them vastly stronger. But this only ever happens with pure blink stalker armies. Someone blink rushes or does a timing push, goes out with a force consisting almost entirely of stalkers, and micros them like nuts. You know what happens these days when stalkers are incorporated into a larger army? One with other gateway units, Colossi, stargate units, etc.? Players put all their stalkers in one control group, blink them within attack range, and then maybe blink them back out again to retreat. Nobody, not even MC, has ever rolled up with a 200/200 army that included Stalkers but didn't consist entirely of them, and then controlled the whole army while invidually pulling Stalkers out of danger the way you'd do during a blink rush. Why? Well, because its hard as fuck, and super duper APM intensive, and right now even the top players just aren't good enough. But does that mean nobody will ever be that good? I don't think so. | ||
|
Scrubington
Canada475 Posts
It's missing Reavers. /thread | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
| ||
|
ReaperX
Hong Kong1758 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On April 20 2011 00:46 ReaperX wrote: Yeah you're right, this also probably leads to people not being consistent all the time whereas in BW player's normally produce a complete different range of results every week. ?_? Looking at GSL results players are being pretty consistent.We even have a yellow line founder | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
the comparison is between cars and starcraft. right now there are two different kind of cars, one with the latest technology to improve one's driving like lancer evolution and nissan gtr and theres cars, though outdated but still loved, like fd3s (rx7), e30/e46 m3, catterham/ariel and such. the difference between the two are just like the comparison people make of sc2 and bw. lancer evolution allows anyone with limited driving skill able to perform on the track, giving them confidence with computer controlled assists to compensate for where they lack in skill. even the smallest thing like ABS that is standard on many cars, could make the difference of a good driver and better driver on the track if the car had no ABS. starcraft 2 is like lancer and gtr, things like super AYC, ASD, Sport ABS, Dual clutch transmission, etc. allows the driver to focus less about the car so he/she can focus more on the track and it minimizes the mistakes that a driver would make. on the other hand, a car like ferrari f40 or e30 m3 is like bw. no special assists like TC and such, so it all comes down to the driver on how well he can really drive his car. and this is preferred by many, many car enthusiasts, being able to drive cars like this fast on track will get more props than driving fast around a track in a car like the gtr. this is where the it separates into two scenes. there are those who prefer no computer assist with manual transmission while there are those who want the latest technology to make them go faster: AYC/Dual Clutch paddle shifters. however, majority of people will not care for lack of technology to make it more fun, majority of the people would want automatic over manual transmission, automation instead of manual operation...sadly, it is the majority that controls the market. enthusiasts are left with little...there are loud cries for the return of toyota supra, 280sx, nsx, etc. but they're unanswered, except for the new ft86 from toyota/subaru. (mitsubishi announced they will end evolution line to focus on EV... T.T). all i want to say is that, while you love your lancer and gtr, if you clown on older cars as "slow and outdated", you're just a douche driving a automatic neon srt4 who thinks he is the shit. in the end, you should love both, not separate the two and claim one is better than the other. there are many like me who'd wished sc2 could have been more like bw, if not a direct copy, i know that isn't the case(wouldn't have happened anyways) and i have no complaints(except for high ground advantage...i'm still bitter about this) but all i can say is for blizzard to really take a good, hard look at the current situation and try their best to fix whatever issue there may be instead of sticking to their own ideals. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On April 19 2011 06:46 infinity2k9 wrote: Early game unit control is a micro trick? Lol cmon you don't need to exaggerate to make a point. You're actually trying to include 'two pronged attacks' aka flanking as a TRICK? You could flank in every RTS ever. The only good example of dynamic unit micro that a lot of people want to see is banelings vs marines, and it's replaced lurkers vs marines anyway. Sure, but it's still micro. Alot of people are trying to make a point out of sc2 just being a bunch of mindless 1a attacks, which is actually not the case if you want to be successful. (I always automatically assume that these people are trying to get higher in their bronze division). Also compared to the first 6 months of Brood War, I'd say that the game shows alot of promise. It's not like the evolution of the game will stop dead in its tracks a year after release or anything. You can't really make a valid comparison between the two games when it comes to mechanics however, which is pretty much what the OP is trying to do. This isn't an expansion to Starcraft.. it's a whole new game. Like it or not. And yeah if you've watched high level PvP, the stalker zealot micro in the early phase is a pretty easy way to recognise the better player in the matchup. | ||
|
s3raph
58 Posts
On April 19 2011 00:46 Scribble wrote: I just wanted to emphasize this, especially the "we haven't seen everything," part. And since we're keen on making the BW comparisons in this thread, do you guys think there were people back when SC1 was a year old saying the same thing? "We've seen it all, this is where skill plateaus!" I encourage you all to check out this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210057 The things being done in that thread surpass, by a fucking enormous margin, the limits of what is humanly possible. However, if people are executing the micro from those videos as well as humanly possible, don't you think it's highly advantageous to do so? What is being shown in that thread is that the skill ceiling is FAR beyond what is humanly possible. What's more, nobody could have even conceived any of that a year ago, and yet here we are. Are we, as a community, honestly going to be arrogant enough to assume that there isn't more hidden potential just because this game isn't a direct remake of BW? I, for one, am convinced that this game has PLENTY of room to grow, and we are very far from hitting any kind of plateau. If you want to argue against that, I think you have to either prove A) That the kind of micro (or rather, a fraction) of what is exemplified in that thread isn't going to significantly differentiate a high-skill player from a lower skill one, B) That the skill ceiling is below the threshold of what is humanly possible (which I think is a pretty impossible argument to make, but go ahead and try), or C) That we, in all of our wisdom, know for certain that those are only isolated situational examples and thus can't be used to determine that player skill will not plateau based solely upon game mechanics being too easy. Again, folks, watch the game develop instead of insisting that it's flawed, that it's too inherently too easy. Nobody made the "SC1 can never be as good/competitive as WC2 argument because it's just not skill intensive enough" argument when SC1 was in its infancy, they just watched, and focused on getting better. Development came rapidly at first, then slowed dramatically, and then came in significant bursts as people learned how to manipulate hugely important nuances until the end result is what we know now as current day BW. I have a feeling we're going to be looking at SC2 in 2021 saying, "yeah, what a fucking ridiculous debate this was," as we marvel at the next generation of bonjwas separating themselves from the pack. tl;dr: Chill out, and watch the game progress instead of trying to spread the doom-and-gloom "it will always be inferior, easier, and less competitive than brood war unless the game gets changed," nonsense. Absolutely agree with this post. And also, a lot of people here seem to attribute BW's commercial success and supporting infrastructure to the game itself. This is blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding. BW wasn't big solely because the game design; the game design itself matters less for a game's commercial success than the environment it was released into. So for the love of God, please stop utilizing 'BW is so commercially successful and big!' as a validating argument for why BW > SC2 or any sort of similar argument. It's just not true. BW was commercially successful in Korea because it got lucky more than it was 'godly game design.' That being said, it is fallacious to put BW's game design on another pedestal compared to SC2 by utilizing 'commercially successful' as a key differentiating characteristic. More importantly, no one in this thread can really determine whether BW's 'deep strategic landscape' (i.e. strategically and tactical depth) is due solely to game design (ie.g. patches, unit combinations) or because it hit a critical mass in Korea where communities developed and could generate innovations together. So please, enough of this BW is more commercially successful, therefore it has to be a better game. -_-;; tl;dr: BW being big in Korea does not validate its game design implicitly, because BW's success was most likely due to the environment it was released into. Additionally, the supporting infrastructure (i.e. mapmakers, professional players) have been credited multiple times in this thread with increasing strategic depth within the game; therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Finally, because supporting infrastructure has been credited multiple times, this implicitly makes no conclusion on game design, making game design arguments between SC2 and BW fallacious. Logic. It is awesome. Use it. I still love lurkers. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote: Absolutely agree with this post. And also, a lot of people here seem to attribute BW's commercial success and supporting infrastructure to the game itself. This is blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding. BW wasn't big solely because the game design; the game design itself matters less for a game's commercial success than the environment it was released into. So for the love of God, please stop utilizing 'BW is so commercially successful and big!' as a validating argument for why BW > SC2 or any sort of similar argument. It's just not true. BW was commercially successful in Korea because it got lucky more than it was 'godly game design.' That being said, it is fallacious to put BW's game design on another pedestal compared to SC2 by utilizing 'commercially successful' as a key differentiating characteristic. More importantly, no one in this thread can really determine whether BW's 'deep strategic landscape' (i.e. strategically and tactical depth) is due solely to game design (ie.g. patches, unit combinations) or because it hit a critical mass in Korea where communities developed and could generate innovations together. So please, enough of this BW is more commercially successful, therefore it has to be a better game. -_-;; tl;dr: BW being big in Korea does not validate its game design implicitly, because BW's success was most likely due to the environment it was released into. Additionally, the supporting infrastructure (i.e. mapmakers, professional players) have been credited multiple times in this thread with increasing strategic depth within the game; therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Finally, because supporting infrastructure has been credited multiple times, this implicitly makes no conclusion on game design, making game design arguments between SC2 and BW fallacious. Logic. It is awesome. Use it. I still love lurkers. I don't think a single person in this thread, or in this community even, thinks that BW got successful purely due to game mechanics and nothing else. EVERYONE know that SC1 success had a lot to do with being in the right place in the right time. Nobody denies that, and Teamliquid is probably more aware of that than any other SC community out there. But at the same time, your argument somewhat implies that BW only got popular due to luck, which is just as "blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding". If BW only got popular due to lucky circumstances, it would have died out already because sooner or later the "bubble" would have popped and people would have realized that the game had no real competitive depth. Obviously that wasn't the case as BW is still immensely popular, and still stands as a triumph of competitive gaming. BW can stand on its own merits, and we have had 10+ years to analyze what those merits are, and how they worked together to make BW great. I fail to see why people are so vehemently against SC2 taking any lesson learned from BW. SC2 and BW may be different, but they are not THAT different. If I were to ask a person what game they consider most similar to BW, I can guarantee you that people are going to say SC2. They certainly aren't going to say Dawn of War, Age of Empires, or any other RTS simply because it's obvious that none of them are ever going to be as close to BW as SC2 is. The two games have differences, but they are both fundamentally Starcraft. And to be honest, most of what made BW great can easily be applied to every RTS out there, or just every competitive game for that matter. People seem to think that what makes BW good only applies to BW and absolutely nothing else, which is silly since anyone who knows anything about competition knows that the elements that create a competitive sport tend to be shared across numerous games, not just one. Most competitive games thrive on similar things: game being mechanically demanding, having strategies that can be executed and countered in multiple ways (i.e. no strict rock-paper-scissors gameplay), having good balance, not having strategies that are easy to use yet hard to counter, having elements that are weak in a newbie's hands while devastating in a pro's hands, and so on. Both SC1 and SC2 have these elements, which is why they are both competitive, but at the same time you can really tell that BW has more of these qualities than SC2, which is basically why we have threads like this so the game can get better. Games don't magically get better over time, otherwise tic-tac-toe would be the deepest game on the planet. A game has to have certain elements conducive to competitive play, and if a game doesn't have them, or they do have them but in lesser quality/quantity, then that's a cause for concern. I don't want to settle for less, nor do I want to just gamble everything on "wait and see". Games thrive on feedback, and that's what we should provide. | ||
| ||
