|
On July 18 2011 00:23 JohnMadden wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 22:51 MidKnight wrote:On July 17 2011 20:31 Serthius wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of an old man going "back in my days, we were so poor we had to blah blah blah".
SC2 has a better user interface than BW did. You may think that means it takes less skill to play, whatever. In my mind "skill" should not be equivalent to "overcoming the limits of a bad user interface". No, we don't "think" SC2 takes less skill to play, it's a fact. Harder to play = more skill requiring, even if you consider terrible UI as a bad thing. Not true either. If you consider overcoming a terrible UI a skill of any sort, then yeah, you'd rather want to play BW, you'd see it as the more exciting one. SC2 players don't want to spend countless hours on learning how to 1a properly, so they are playing SC2 and will excel in other aspects of the game than just mechanics. Just accept the fact that both games are just very different games and both require different abilities to be good at them. What's the most painful for most people to comprehend is that SC2 is becoming 'mainstream' now and BW's community is becoming smaller over time - that's something that you just have to get over with or find other ways of changing this situation than "back in my days, we were so poor we had to blah blah blah".
You are acting as if BW is all about mechanics and "overcoming terrible UI" and SC2 is some sort of godsend strategy masterpiece. Like I said, this is exactly why SC became such a success compared to other RTSs. It combined both mechanics and strategy in a very awesome way and seeing progamers do these things which you know you could never do is amazing.
SC2 doesn't have anything over BW in strategy department atm and the mechanics just aren't as exciting to me personally. Nostalgia definitely plays a part in it, there are just so many factors which make the whole feel of BW great.
The way armies collide in BW is just that much more awesome compared to SC2. You could see straggling units getting picked off due to poor control (yes, even at pro level), units getting stuck due to great surrounds etc. etc.
In SC2 it's usually 2 blobs colliding with some generic micro mixed in.
It's kinda hard to explain it, but BW just feels a lot more fluid..
And I don't think I ever said SC2 is a bad game, it's definitely the best RTS in the market atm.
I don't even watch/play BW that much at all, all the action is in SC2. But I can still appreciate how good that game is and it saddens me when so many people just don't get why BW is awesome
|
On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough?
|
People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough?
I'll say at least 2-3 years after the last expansion is out.
I'm a die hard bw fan as much as the next fanatic, but sc2 is so new and volatile (zergbong is the best player in the world? mind is blown), the jury has not even been assembled yet.
|
On July 18 2011 02:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough?
http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-daily-323-ogsmc-s-pvz-5370956
This daily was a little shocking to me. After spending half the daily gushing over how oGsMC's latest PvZ air build was so amazing at giving map control and total vision, he loaded a game from MLG columbus where MC did nearly the same thing, but it was much much less effective because he wasn't doing it as well.
Speaking of Day[9], I was watching him and Destiny go over replays on Destiny's stream. Destiny mentioned that he'd noticed most Terrans A-move their army out of their own base, and don't micro it until it's close to the Zerg's base. This meant that if an infestor or two were near the entrance to the Terran base, it could mosy up and get some sick fungals because the Terran units would all be clumped. That was really exciting, because Destiny had noticed a small flaw in Terran play and discovered how to make it a huge flaw.
|
On July 18 2011 02:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough?
I see plenty of micro in sc2. marine split , move shot, hellion harras , baneling, baneling drop, muta harras, blink stalker, pvp in general or zvz, banshee harras.
|
Almost everything you mentioned has a comparable BW counterpart that is much more impressive and difficult to pull off.
|
On July 18 2011 03:07 Miefer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 02:47 maybenexttime wrote:On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough? I see plenty of micro in sc2. marine split , move shot, hellion harras , baneling, baneling drop, muta harras, blink stalker, pvp in general or zvz, banshee harras.
You know, I'm not a huge BW fan or anything, but this list looks kind of pathetic. :/ Only real examples of interesting micro there are marine splits and ling/bling wars. Everything else is pretty much basic stop micro and pull micro. There's really nothing special about it. If you think Muta harass in SC2 is impressive, you should really watch a BW TvZ and compare.
If anything, SC2's design suggests that Blizzard doesn't like micro at all, with all the anti-micro abilities and adding a ton of a-move units.
|
On July 18 2011 03:07 Miefer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 02:47 maybenexttime wrote:On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough? I see plenty of micro in sc2. marine split , move shot, hellion harras , baneling, baneling drop, muta harras, blink stalker, pvp in general or zvz, banshee harras.
Oh come on man. Also, move shot doesn't even exist in SC2.
|
On July 18 2011 02:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough?
I'm not sure there is less micro at the pro level, but the game is much younger and much much faster, so it obviously certain things which were possible due to the slow pace of sc1 are going to be much more difficult in sc2.
|
On July 18 2011 03:30 setzer wrote:
Almost everything you mentioned has a comparable BW counterpart that is much more impressive and difficult to pull off.
and what makes the moves better in BW apart from "harder to click"?
Harder =\= better.
|
On July 18 2011 05:33 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 03:30 setzer wrote:
Almost everything you mentioned has a comparable BW counterpart that is much more impressive and difficult to pull off. and what makes the moves better in BW apart from "harder to click"? Harder =\= better.
The fact that BW (a part from stasis) allow micro instead of restricting it?(forcefields, fungal growth, concussive shells...)
So there is a confrontation of skill between the two players(micro-wise) wich can procure quite a lot of excitement for the average spectator.
Edit:Whoops sorry Toadvine I've somewhat stolen your argument
|
So it's not the micro you miss but the spell selection?
So really, it's purely nostalgia and not really argument?
|
On July 18 2011 05:46 lorkac wrote:
So it's not the micro you miss but the spell selection?
So really, it's purely nostalgia and not really argument?
Are you trolling?
I talk about the general tendancy of the game, and why it is more impressive to see two players respond to eachother instead of one accomplishing HIS micro task while the other is waiting to see if the aforementioned micro-er has failed or not.
Where is the nostalgia here?
I talk about game design...
Edit:oh and that's why the interaction banneling-marine is a good one.
Instead of restricting micro it allow room for more micro to happen where the T player can now split his marines to avoid some of the damage.
In response the Z player can now split his banneling to optimize the efficiency of his blings.
|
On July 18 2011 05:33 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 03:30 setzer wrote:
Almost everything you mentioned has a comparable BW counterpart that is much more impressive and difficult to pull off. and what makes the moves better in BW apart from "harder to click"? Harder =\= better.
The fact that they require actual technique as opposed to simple button pressing (which is why sc2 players with no BW experience always equate BW to button mashing - micro in sc2 practically is just button mashing)? In BW, Muta micro alone consists of like 5-6 different techniques alone, whereas in SC2 people call "magic boxing" "micro" (to a seasoned BW player, hell any seasoned RTS player, it's a joke, no offence).
As mentioned above, the only SC2 micro that's comparable to BW one in terms of depth/skill is Banelings vs. Marines and Lings/Banelings battles. The rest is either as simple as Dragoon hold-micro or "hold button, click-click-click" kind of thing (imo smart-cast is one of the worst micro killers in the game, spell casting in BW is so much more impressive because of the lack of smart-cast and better spell design in general, e.g. Storm encourages micro on both sides of the battle).
edit: Honestly, I'm not bashing SC2 at all. I always give credit where it's due. E.g. I love how Banelings turned out in SC2 - Marines vs. Banelings battles, Banelings/Lings battles, Baneling mines, Baneling drops (both in battles and harassment). It's just that most unit interactions in SC2 are shallow compared to BW.
edit #2: By "technique" I mean micro that requires specific timing, precision and a sort of algorythm (think of Marine splitting: manual vs. patrol, just more sophisticated).
|
On July 18 2011 05:49 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 05:46 lorkac wrote:
So it's not the micro you miss but the spell selection?
So really, it's purely nostalgia and not really argument? Is it a troll? I talk about the general tendancy of the game, and why it is more impressive to see two players respond to eachother instead of one accomplishing HIS micro task while the other is waiting to see if the aforementioned micro-er has failed or not. Where is the nostalgia here? I talk about game design...
actually no.
You listed spells you disliked and wished were more like the spells in BW
that's not game design, that's nostalgia.
Let's list the spells in BW
heal
blind
restore
lockdown
cloak
defensive matrix
irradiate
emp
yamato cannon
psi storm
hallucinate
feedback
maelstorm
mind control
stasis
disruption web
web
spawn broodlings
parasite
plague
dark swarm
consume
burrow (let's give this to BW to be nice)
of those spells 5 turn units off (dark swarm, psi disruption, lockdown, stasis, maelstorm) and two outright kill the opponents unit (spawn broodlings, mind control)
the rest are aoe or utility.
Forcefield? Doesn't turn off units, just changes terrain.
Fungal growth? Does less damage than 2 dragoon shots.
Neural parasite? Oh right, a temporary Mind Control.
PDD? Oh right, can be killed and only stops a set number of shots. It's like a crappy version of dark swarm.
Strike Cannons? A channeled lockdown that doesn't last as long.
Come to think of it--sc2 spells are less overpowered than BW spells. But only if you compare them side by side. If you depended on nostalgia, th sky's the limit to how much better the spells you favor are to the ones you dislike.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2011 01:00 Shiori wrote:
Allow me to explain why the skill ceiling is lower in SC2 than it is in Brood War. There seems to be a fundamental misconception that it has something to do with the inherently mechanics-based nature of BW as compared to the more streamlined SC2. This is only partially true, but mechanics in themselves are not what make games competitively challenging. It's entirely possible to have easier mechanics but difficult strategic decisions, which would result in an equally difficult game. The problem, however, is that SC2 doesn't replace mechanical depth with anything non-transitory. Why? In short, because SC2 is primarily a game of BO counters and hard counters.
Let me give you an example: In BW, Lurkers countered marines, but with good play, the person with the marines could actually accomplish something rather than losing all of his forces. Now let's look at SC2. No matter how good your blink micro is, Stalkers are never going to beat Marauders. What's amusing is that the units that people never use/consider UP are actually the only balanced units in the game in a BW sense. Take the Hydralisk: it's slow as shit off of creep and everyone says it needs a buff. It doesn't. All units should be like the hydralisk. Hydralisks counter stalkers in a straight fight, but with good positioning and really good Blink micro, the Toss player can minimize losses and sometimes come out on top.
Look at the Raven: it's another good unit because it's a situational counter which can be dealt with on the fly. Generally speaking, if the opponent gets a Raven, (unless it's a timing push) you can counter it with micro given the units you have, or by picking a position outside of the range of the PDD. Similarly, Banelings are devastating against biological units, but they can be countered through good micro, especially since they represent an inherent investment from the Zerg player. The Baneling is actually one of the best units in Sc2 precisely because it can be used in so many different ways (e.g. drops) none of which are absolute hard counters to anything (since they can always be minimized by micro).
So, when you ask for something to be balanced in SC2, I suggest that you ask for the majority of units to be nerfed, because giving everything a hard counter means that games become Build Order tossups, devoid of skill except for the easily acquirable ability to scout builds early in the game.
In a nutshell, that's why SC2 will falter competitively unless players accept that the game needs to be hard and that strategies should require inherent risk and never be an automatic composition win. There's nothing wrong with having a better army comp giving you, say, a 10% advantage over your opponent's army, but that's all it should be: an advantage, not an automatic victory.
Now we can surely debate, if there are more hardcounters in sc2 than bw, but you can't act like there are none in BW. Scourge shuts down any air and stimmed marines > muta, science vessel > lurkers, defiler with energy > most of T army, archons > zerglings etc.
I really don't see the point of such threads. The most obvious reason is, that it will create a giant trollfest, but also if you want to suggest improvements in SC2, you can do this without referring to SC:BW or you lack any ability to abstract the important essence of "your" idea.
IMO, no SC:BW vs SC2 thread brings us anywhere, but feeding the trolls
|
On July 18 2011 05:59 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 05:33 lorkac wrote:On July 18 2011 03:30 setzer wrote:
Almost everything you mentioned has a comparable BW counterpart that is much more impressive and difficult to pull off. and what makes the moves better in BW apart from "harder to click"? Harder =\= better. The fact that they require actual technique as opposed to simple button pressing (which is why sc2 players with no BW experience always equate BW to button mashing - micro in sc2 practically is just button mashing)? In BW, Muta micro alone consists of like 5-6 different techniques alone, whereas in SC2 people call "magic boxing" "micro" (to a seasoned BW player, hell any seasoned RTS player, it's a joke, no offence). As mentioned above, the only SC2 micro that's comparable to BW one in terms of depth/skill is Banelings vs. Marines and Lings/Banelings battles. The rest is either as simple as Dragoon hold-micro or "hold button, click-click-click" kind of thing (imo smart-cast is one of the worst micro killers in the game, spell casting in BW is so much more impressive because of the lack of smart-cast and better spell design in general, e.g. Storm encourages micro on both sides of the battle). edit: Honestly, I'm not bashing SC2 at all. I always give credit where it's due. E.g. I love how Banelings turned out in SC2 - Marines vs. Banelings battles, Banelings/Lings battles, Baneling mines, Baneling drops (both in battles and harassment). It's just that most unit interactions in SC2 are shallow compared to BW. edit #2: By "technique" I mean micro that requires specific timing, precision and a sort of algorythm (think of Marine splitting: manual vs. patrol, just more sophisticated).
this argument I agree with. Evidence, comparison, conclusion. A description other than "it's harder" but more specifically it's the missing of the algorythmic nature of unit control in BW.
|
On July 18 2011 06:06 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 05:49 Kanku wrote:On July 18 2011 05:46 lorkac wrote:
So it's not the micro you miss but the spell selection?
So really, it's purely nostalgia and not really argument? Is it a troll? I talk about the general tendancy of the game, and why it is more impressive to see two players respond to eachother instead of one accomplishing HIS micro task while the other is waiting to see if the aforementioned micro-er has failed or not. Where is the nostalgia here? I talk about game design... actually no. You listed spells you disliked and wished were more like the spells in BW that's not game design, that's nostalgia. Let's list the spells in BW heal blind restore lockdown cloak defensive matrix irradiate emp yamato cannon psi storm hallucinate feedback maelstorm mind control stasis disruption web web spawn broodlings parasite plague dark swarm consume burrow (let's give this to BW to be nice) of those spells 5 turn units off (dark swarm, psi disruption, lockdown, stasis, maelstorm) and two outright kill the opponents unit (spawn broodlings, mind control) the rest are aoe or utility. Forcefield? Doesn't turn off units, just changes terrain. Fungal growth? Does less damage than 2 dragoon shots. Neural parasite? Oh right, a temporary Mind Control. PDD? Oh right, can be killed and only stops a set number of shots. It's like a crappy version of dark swarm. Strike Cannons? A channeled lockdown that doesn't last as long. Come to think of it--sc2 spells are less overpowered than BW spells. But only if you compare them side by side. If you depended on nostalgia, th sky's the limit to how much better the spells you favor are to the ones you dislike.
This is getting ridiculous you're listing lockdown maelstorm and psi disruption wich are actually never seen in pro bw (pretty much) see how i didn't list the mother ship vortex?
Now if forcefield, fungal or conc shell doesn't restrict micro I don't know how you use thoses abilities but certainly not the same way pro players are using it.
And you still didn't talk about my argument wich his that restrictive micro spells are in general boring.
At this point that's just pure trolling unless you really want to debate on the arguments I will not answer to your troll atempts...
Edit:Really I'm just talking about the general tendancy of the game you can list all the abilities that you want the thing is that BW allow more room for "micro contests" than SC2 (for the time being)
|
On July 18 2011 04:06 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 03:07 Miefer wrote:On July 18 2011 02:47 maybenexttime wrote:On July 18 2011 01:09 Fleebenworth wrote:
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
If there's so much more room for micro in SC2, then explain to me why we see so much LESS micro compared to BW? ;; People have been saying this since the announcement, and it's been over a year since beta, yet SC2 has not surpassed BW in any regard as far as gameplay/skill goes. People keep saying "give it more time" - how much time is enough? I see plenty of micro in sc2. marine split , move shot, hellion harras , baneling, baneling drop, muta harras, blink stalker, pvp in general or zvz, banshee harras. You know, I'm not a huge BW fan or anything, but this list looks kind of pathetic. :/ Only real examples of interesting micro there are marine splits and ling/bling wars. Everything else is pretty much basic stop micro and pull micro. There's really nothing special about it. If you think Muta harass in SC2 is impressive, you should really watch a BW TvZ and compare. If anything, SC2's design suggests that Blizzard doesn't like micro at all, with all the anti-micro abilities and adding a ton of a-move units.
what? I am just saying there is micro in sc2, i am not saying if it is interesting or not.
also by move shot, i mean stutter step. i didnt even mentioned all. there is micro involved in emp sniping, fungel. feedback etc. also at pro level if you a move everything I am sure you lose. give me some example where it works in the pro level.
|
On July 18 2011 06:15 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 06:06 lorkac wrote:On July 18 2011 05:49 Kanku wrote:On July 18 2011 05:46 lorkac wrote:
So it's not the micro you miss but the spell selection?
So really, it's purely nostalgia and not really argument? Is it a troll? I talk about the general tendancy of the game, and why it is more impressive to see two players respond to eachother instead of one accomplishing HIS micro task while the other is waiting to see if the aforementioned micro-er has failed or not. Where is the nostalgia here? I talk about game design... actually no. You listed spells you disliked and wished were more like the spells in BW that's not game design, that's nostalgia. Let's list the spells in BW heal blind restore lockdown cloak defensive matrix irradiate emp yamato cannon psi storm hallucinate feedback maelstorm mind control stasis disruption web web spawn broodlings parasite plague dark swarm consume burrow (let's give this to BW to be nice) of those spells 5 turn units off (dark swarm, psi disruption, lockdown, stasis, maelstorm) and two outright kill the opponents unit (spawn broodlings, mind control) the rest are aoe or utility. Forcefield? Doesn't turn off units, just changes terrain. Fungal growth? Does less damage than 2 dragoon shots. Neural parasite? Oh right, a temporary Mind Control. PDD? Oh right, can be killed and only stops a set number of shots. It's like a crappy version of dark swarm. Strike Cannons? A channeled lockdown that doesn't last as long. Come to think of it--sc2 spells are less overpowered than BW spells. But only if you compare them side by side. If you depended on nostalgia, th sky's the limit to how much better the spells you favor are to the ones you dislike. This is getting ridiculous you're listing lockdown maelstorm and psi disruption wich are actually never seen in pro bw (pretty much) see how i didn't list the mother ship vortex? Now if forcefield or fungal doesn't restrict micro I don't know how you use thoses abilities but certainly not the same way pro players are using it. And you still didn't talk about my argument wich his that restrictive micro spells are in general boring. At this point that's just pure trolling unless you really want to debate on the arguments I will not answer to your troll atempts... Edit:Really I'm just talking about the general tendancy of the game you can list all the abilities that you want the thing is that BW allow more room for "micro contest" than SC2 (for the time being)
if you get fungeled you cant micro but the micro is to avoid to get fungeled or to mcro aganist forcefiels you can use medivacs as many times seen by koreans or borrow move. its just the other way around in sc2. you try to avoid getting damage .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
