|
On April 20 2011 08:22 TrainSamurai wrote:Let me help some of you sc2 defenders: Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 13:59 mahnini wrote:
i have no doubt it's mechanically intensive but again mechanics was never the focal point of my unit relationship argument. you have to click a lot but the relationship is simple and all the micro is mostly damage mitigation. this is completely different from, say, attacking an entrench position in BW PvT. tbh I don't understand wht the OP just doesn't play BW, it isn't like SC2 has to succeed, blizzard needs to fail once in a while so they don't get up themselves.
It may shock you (despite being repeatedly said in this thread), but people make these comparisons and threads because they're trying to get SC2 to learn from BW because they want SC2 to truly succeed as an e-sport.
Terribly shocking, I know.
|
On April 20 2011 11:33 aimaimaim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 08:36 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:
therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Frankly, I don't think it will ever balance out itself before Blizzard doesn't stfu with the patching. BW got good/balanced after Blizzard stopped the patching...Leave that shit to the community Blizzard, we are good at it, you're not. Yes! YES! YES!Every time I see about SC2 whine about their game being imbalanced, I blame Blizzard! Korean BW proscene is what it is now because of the players. PLAYERS BALANCE THE GAMES! MAPS ARE THERE TO ADD MORE BALANCE! This will be like WOW where they balance their PvP for PvE and STILL want to cater to new players. If BLIZZARD will stop spoon feeding noobs, we can have this SKILL CAP!Read this so that you, SC2 groupies will know what BW is missing .. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213263
Dude, being a BW fanboy is cool and all, I love BW too, but I have to step in.
The bolded part is totally wrong and baseless. Comparing wow balance to sc2 balance is nonsensical and misleading for the people who read this thread. We all know from Blizzcon 2010 that the two are 100% different and unrelated.
edit; also yes, indeed, sc2 is missing JD, bisu and Flash 
|
On April 20 2011 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It may shock you (despite being repeatedly said in this thread), but people make these comparisons and threads because they're trying to get SC2 to learn from BW because they want SC2 to truly succeed as an e-sport.
Terribly shocking, I know.
That itself is quite puzzling. Why? Because SC2 clearly deserves it? Highly debatable ( lets just leave that poiint there and not argue it). I believe people want it to succeed because it has SC in the title... If you like the dynamics in BW so much leave SC2 to die and just play BW.
|
On April 20 2011 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 08:22 TrainSamurai wrote:Let me help some of you sc2 defenders: On April 16 2011 13:59 mahnini wrote:
i have no doubt it's mechanically intensive but again mechanics was never the focal point of my unit relationship argument. you have to click a lot but the relationship is simple and all the micro is mostly damage mitigation. this is completely different from, say, attacking an entrench position in BW PvT. tbh I don't understand wht the OP just doesn't play BW, it isn't like SC2 has to succeed, blizzard needs to fail once in a while so they don't get up themselves. It may shock you (despite being repeatedly said in this thread), but people make these comparisons and threads because they're trying to get SC2 to learn from BW because they want SC2 to truly succeed as an e-sport.Terribly shocking, I know.
I believe you want it to succed, but if Blizz were to follow your advice, it would fail.
E-sports does not need another Brood War. It doesn't even need a game that's similar to Brood War. It already has Brood War, and any attempt to replace it is doomed to failure.
|
Its too bad that you can't have a normal discussion about balance with this game. All the zergs are whiners and our mindset is bad etc.. Well, I guess all we have to do is hope blizz wants some huge money in sc2, they better add a third race.
|
There are a lot of differences with BW and SC2, but honestly I think everyone still blows at SC2 so it's a little hard to judge accurately what will be.
BW is a game that has been played for years, SC2 has been played for a year. For example - compare play from the 2001 OSL finals to the 2010 finals. If you watch the vods, you'll see that even Boxer himself was only the micro master of his time. There's a world in difference in the play.
I'll agree that a lot of the spellcasting is dumbed down, but a lot of things haven't even been tryed yet with the units. For example, if you had a perfect ring of 8 vikings around a PvT deathball it would be much, much more difficult to use stalkers to kill the vikings. If the terran was always faster than you, he could micro back only the vikings you chased, meaning that 6-7 vikings would always be attacking the collosi.
1a'ing into an army is going to reduce the skill ceiling for both players, I just think people haven't been able to exploit the new "clumping" ai yet. At some point it will happen I think 
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On April 20 2011 12:02 Ribbon wrote:
It already has Brood War, and any attempt to replace it is doomed to failure.
really?
look how much it has taken from brood war already. how would further incorporating the deepest concepts of broodwar doom it to failure? you people fixate too much on the fact that people making the suggestions played an older game. it would be idiotic to not analyze what made a sequel's predecessor so successful.
|
On April 20 2011 12:02 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 20 2011 08:22 TrainSamurai wrote:Let me help some of you sc2 defenders: On April 16 2011 13:59 mahnini wrote:
i have no doubt it's mechanically intensive but again mechanics was never the focal point of my unit relationship argument. you have to click a lot but the relationship is simple and all the micro is mostly damage mitigation. this is completely different from, say, attacking an entrench position in BW PvT. tbh I don't understand wht the OP just doesn't play BW, it isn't like SC2 has to succeed, blizzard needs to fail once in a while so they don't get up themselves. It may shock you (despite being repeatedly said in this thread), but people make these comparisons and threads because they're trying to get SC2 to learn from BW because they want SC2 to truly succeed as an e-sport.Terribly shocking, I know. I believe you want it to succed, but if Blizz were to follow your advice, it would fail. E-sports does not need another Brood War. It doesn't even need a game that's similar to Brood War. It already has Brood War, and any attempt to replace it is doomed to failure.
That's not true, if Blizzard made a BW remake in HD graphics (not the disney-esque ones we have now), that was EXACTLY the same in everyway to BroodWar, I'm sure players would switch over, given the much higher prize pool and future possibilities.
|
I share your concerns, but feel most of them have been addressed or resolved, or will be resolved as the game evolves.
I do think more powerful spells and slightly less powerful normal attacks would be an improvement, that or adjusting unit spacing and buffing storms (honestly I think Blizzard thinks this would be more ambitious than it really would be) would benefit the excitement.
But IMO, what is SC2 missing most? A TEAM LEAGUE! The team league is what really creates consistent fans with consistent viewing habits and regular events to watch.
My 2nd pick would be slower detection tech trees.
My 3rd pick would be lurkers, and more frequent HTs and less frequent Colossi.
My 4th pick would be slower time to supply max, it greatly reduces strategic/tactical options
|
Also I didn't want to post in this thread about the OP but here's my opinion.
I know that Mahini is a smart guy and is very knowledgeable, but I don't see the point of the OP. Now I'm cool with the fact that you wanted to educate the community, especially the newer members who think that *insert sc2 progamer here* got the best micro in the world. But you just basically described BW and said that Sc2 is different from BW.
In Streets of Rage 1 you could only do ONE special move every level. If you used your special move in the beginning of the level, then you couldn't use it again, unless you die and respawn.
In Streets of Rage 2 you could use the special move as many times as you wanted, the only drawback was that it depleted a small portion of your Health Bar. So as long as you had enough HP, you could chain the Special move. Of course just like Sc stimpak, you couldn't use it if your HP was too low.
Now, Streets of Rage 1 Special ability was a lot more powerful than SoR 2's special, but because you could only use it one time, timing it right was a very useful talent toi have.
However, I don't mind that Sega did change the special abilities mechanics in Streets of Rage 2, because I'm aware that the developers wanted to design a different game. Yes, sometimes I wish SoR 2 had SoR 1's special abilities' mechanics, you know, I love seeing that beautiful cop car. But like I said previously, I accepted the fact that that the developers didn't want to make a BW clone, but instead something refreshing.
Yes, I agree, atm BW is definitely in better shape than Sc2, especially now that it's 10 years old.
But I really don't understand what you are getting at. Unless you want Blizzard to start from scrap and redo sc2 entirely. Or maybe that whole article is just disguised teasing aimed at current sc2 progamers, whose decision making & unit control may or may not be up to par? In any case, I'm confident that a step-up is bound to happen.
|
On April 19 2011 05:59 theqat wrote:
Well it's essentially a newb audience or no audience. Brood War's explosive popularity in Korea was virtually a perfect storm of circumstances and a game that difficult would most likely never find the same degree of popularity in the rest of the world.
Blizzard should be commended, on one level--sc2 is easily the most popular ESPORTS game at this level of complexity--but they definitely need to add more skill-intensive units or mechanics in the expansions.
Fortunately, I don't see a way that they can avoid doing so--pretty much every conceivable type of attack-move unit is already in SC2, so they're going to have to add something interesting. And I hope they're reading this thread because it is the first sc2/bw comparison thread I can remember that has something interesting to say.
See, I don't know why they didn't add these units in the first place. One of the biggest reasons that newer players / less skilled players weren't drawn into SCBW was because of the inaccessibility of the units. However, there wasn't a proper laddering system in SCBW, so 9/10 if you wanted to get into SCBW after a long hiatus or just diving in for the first time, the player gets steamrolled by some dude thats played thousands of games.
In SC2 this isn't a problem. The matchmaking system is really good. Players are consistently paired against similar skilled opponents, so even if you jump into the game months or years later, you're still getting good games. It wouldn't matter to newer players if some units required tons of micro to be used effectively. At the same time it gives people at the top room to differentiate between whos hot and whos not.
It feels like a conscious design decision to make the units they did. I mean, they switched out the zealot speed upgrade which was fantastic for tons of things (running away, flanking, getting in ranged units faces) and opted for something that pretty much takes the control out of the player's hand: A click and watch the zealots magically spread out.
Now they've got a core game that is deeply flawed for players on the top because of how the units interact and I don't think adding a few new units and abilities is going to change anything in a meaningful way. The core units need to be changed, but this will never happen because of the casual audience that will be complaining that the game is too hard because their favorite unit or unit composition is too hard to manage now.
If the baseline were set beforehand, they wouldn't have anything to complain about and would have been happy as clams using their units ineffectively.
|
What I see the spellcasting is this:
In BW, the units were pretty spread out and the AI was dumb, being able to select only 12 at once. Spells like psi storm and plague didn't hit nearly as many units as they can in SC2. The skill was in being able to cast multiple spells quickly as well as trying to avoid them faster than they can be casted.
In SC2, the units are tightly packed with good pathing and smartcasting. Spells like psi storm and fungal hit tons of units at once. The skill now is in not clumping your units together, even though putting everything on 1 hotkey is easy, and also avoiding the spells. Right now, people have everything clumped up, but as SC2 develops, these skills become more and more important.
|
People keep getting the idea that the pathing in SC2 is something revolutionary, its not. Why? It doesn't achieve the desired result. The clumping swarm AI is terrible, other games who use the same technique do not end up with tightly packed ball vs ball fights.
Just look at company of heroes, their units do not pack up, but still they are able to navigate perfectly (even better than SC2) through nooks and crannys and don't interfere with each other like dragoons in BW.
|
On April 20 2011 13:02 sluggaslamoo wrote:
People keep getting the idea that the pathing in SC2 is something revolutionary, its not. Why? It doesn't achieve the desired result. The clumping swarm AI is terrible, other games who use the same technique do not end up with tightly packed ball vs ball fights.
Just look at company of heroes, their units do not pack up, but still they are able to navigate perfectly (even better than SC2) through nooks and crannys and don't interfere with each other like dragoons in BW.
While I do agree that the swarm AI is awkward in the majority of cases, I don't think it's as terrible as people claim it is. It does look cool for some Zerg units, especially Zerglings, which I guess fits with the lore. However, I do agree that in the majority of cases, watching clumped up Stalkers, Thors, or Marauders is just plain awkward, though IMO it's quite smooth and intuitive to control.
However, I don't think it's accurate to compare the SC2 AI with that of Company of Heroes. Whereas there are a plethora of different units and unit sizes in SC2, Company of Heroes basically consists of infantry and vehicles (as well as some infantry-powered mobile cannons). The Company of Heroes infantry AI may be absolutely brilliant, but only because the nature of the cover system, gameplay, and realism allow for quite a bit of autonomy from the infantry AI. Also, I think the vehicle AI in CoH is complete crap, but that's a different story.
I think SC2 is taking cues from the Age of Empires series and similar games for their unit pathfinding, especially regarding clumping. I think the addition of clumping and formations in AoE2 after AoE1 is analogous to the addition of clumping in SC2 after SC1. Clumping worked quite well in AoE2 and AoE3, but it seems out of place in SC2 despite IMO being quite smooth and intuitive to control.
But anyways, I am very sorry if I'm deviating too much from the topic.
|
On April 20 2011 12:46 0neder wrote:
My 4th pick would be slower time to supply max, it greatly reduces strategic/tactical options
It's interesting that you say this. It take approximately 15 mins to max in TvP in BW. However, this is playing off 3 bases. I think it takes approximately the same amount of time to max in SC2, if not longer. However, expansions are taken relatively later in sc2.
Also can you elaborate on reducing strategic/tactical options?
BTW, Slayers_Boxer himself said that if SC2 were to succeed, people have to start playing more entertaining games. I mean, yeah, player skill has something to do with it, but there is a skill ceiling that will be reached. After players hit the theoretical skill ceiling, will the games become more entertaining?
|
On April 20 2011 11:49 AlBundy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:33 aimaimaim wrote:On April 20 2011 08:36 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:
therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Frankly, I don't think it will ever balance out itself before Blizzard doesn't stfu with the patching. BW got good/balanced after Blizzard stopped the patching...Leave that shit to the community Blizzard, we are good at it, you're not. Yes! YES! YES!Every time I see about SC2 whine about their game being imbalanced, I blame Blizzard! Korean BW proscene is what it is now because of the players. PLAYERS BALANCE THE GAMES! MAPS ARE THERE TO ADD MORE BALANCE! This will be like WOW where they balance their PvP for PvE and STILL want to cater to new players. If BLIZZARD will stop spoon feeding noobs, we can have this SKILL CAP!Read this so that you, SC2 groupies will know what BW is missing .. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213263 Dude, being a BW fanboy is cool and all, I love BW too, but I have to step in. The bolded part is totally wrong and baseless. Comparing wow balance to sc2 balance is nonsensical and misleading for the people who read this thread. We all know from Blizzcon 2010 that the two are 100% different and unrelated. edit; also yes, indeed, sc2 is missing JD, bisu and Flash
Their approach is the same. Dumb the game so that it's beginner friendly. If people cook something new and innovative, gaining the upper hand, the receiving end of this play will whine and whine until they get blizzard to patch and nerf it to kingdom come. Making the game bland and .. well dumb.
|
On April 17 2011 11:28 mahnini wrote:
so is anyone actually against having more units like the siege tank added to sc2 or is everyone just mad that i used bw as an example?
imho giving similar units to z & t would make the game very boring
all races have their own way of controlling space, Terran with siege tank and turret, Zerg with muta and sling, Toss with DT and FF
giving a siege tank-like unit to Zerg wont feel right since Zerg supposed to be all about mobility (the main reason why people are hating SC2 Hydra)
giving a siege tank-like unit to Toss which already have a force field would be OP, imagine what a splash damage will do to you when you cannot move away from the area (which already kind of happen with Collosi+FF)
|
On April 20 2011 11:58 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It may shock you (despite being repeatedly said in this thread), but people make these comparisons and threads because they're trying to get SC2 to learn from BW because they want SC2 to truly succeed as an e-sport.
Terribly shocking, I know. That itself is quite puzzling. Why? Because SC2 clearly deserves it? Highly debatable ( lets just leave that poiint there and not argue it). I believe people want it to succeed because it has SC in the title... If you like the dynamics in BW so much leave SC2 to die and just play BW.
How do you not get this? It's quite obvious. SC2 is the biggest chance that e-sports has ever had to truly grow into something in the west. People are cheering for it and want it to succeed because they want e-sports to grow. This was incredibly obvious right from the beta.
I believe you want it to succed, but if Blizz were to follow your advice, it would fail.
E-sports does not need another Brood War. It doesn't even need a game that's similar to Brood War. It already has Brood War, and any attempt to replace it is doomed to failure.
Damn some people are dense.
The ideas presented in the OP don't go hand-in-hand with the game being Brood War. The ideas are general ideas that have made the only truly successful e-sport, EVER. Game flow, map control, positioning, unit interaction, these are general concepts that are achieved in a specific way in BW. You don't have to achieve them in the same way as BW, but they should be done in some way because they aren't in SC2, or at least aren't done enough.
The ideas are what made the game a great e-sport, not what made the game great, or what made it uniquely Brood War. The only reason that BW is brought up at all is because it's the example of a game that had the right mechanics, designs, etc. to make the game truly succeed as a watchable video game. It's not like people are looking at SC2 and saying, "How can we make it like BW?" People are looking at SC2 and saying, "There's something missing from the spectator experience of SC2. Lets identify what it is and figure out what would make it better. The best example of what would make it better is BW, because it's not only an RTS as well, but it's also the prequel to this game, and most importantly, it's the most successful e-sport ever."
Are we understanding the point yet?
|
On April 20 2011 13:02 sluggaslamoo wrote:
People keep getting the idea that the pathing in SC2 is something revolutionary, its not. Why? It doesn't achieve the desired result. The clumping swarm AI is terrible, other games who use the same technique do not end up with tightly packed ball vs ball fights.
Just look at company of heroes, their units do not pack up, but still they are able to navigate perfectly (even better than SC2) through nooks and crannys and don't interfere with each other like dragoons in BW.
I don't know why they didn't keep unit formations/magic box in Starcraft 2. Extremely simple concept: Click in the middle of a bunch of units, they will bunch together. Click outside the box and the units will move in formation. Click further enough away, and the units will spread out.
|
On April 20 2011 14:30 aimaimaim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:49 AlBundy wrote:On April 20 2011 11:33 aimaimaim wrote:On April 20 2011 08:36 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:
therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Frankly, I don't think it will ever balance out itself before Blizzard doesn't stfu with the patching. BW got good/balanced after Blizzard stopped the patching...Leave that shit to the community Blizzard, we are good at it, you're not. Yes! YES! YES!Every time I see about SC2 whine about their game being imbalanced, I blame Blizzard! Korean BW proscene is what it is now because of the players. PLAYERS BALANCE THE GAMES! MAPS ARE THERE TO ADD MORE BALANCE! This will be like WOW where they balance their PvP for PvE and STILL want to cater to new players. If BLIZZARD will stop spoon feeding noobs, we can have this SKILL CAP!Read this so that you, SC2 groupies will know what BW is missing .. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213263 Dude, being a BW fanboy is cool and all, I love BW too, but I have to step in. The bolded part is totally wrong and baseless. Comparing wow balance to sc2 balance is nonsensical and misleading for the people who read this thread. We all know from Blizzcon 2010 that the two are 100% different and unrelated. edit; also yes, indeed, sc2 is missing JD, bisu and Flash Their approach is the same. Dumb the game so that it's beginner friendly. If people cook something new and innovative, gaining the upper hand, the receiving end of this play will whine and whine until they get blizzard to patch and nerf it to kingdom come. Making the game bland and .. well dumb.
Oh yeah? do you have a source? Or are you pulling this statement out of your ass? You won't convince me with speculation. I'm talking about actual facts so please go and watch sc2 panels @ Blizzcon 2k10 before spouting such negative comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
