|
On February 22 2012 09:42 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 07:06 Squeegy wrote:On February 22 2012 06:52 koonst wrote:
i belive the focus of sc2 is more of a thinking mans game u are more able to explore all the avenues availible to you.
you can better micro. drop. harass. position and defend more! because your more free to do so .
But you don't have to worry about macroing things in tic-tac-toe either. If game requires less mechanical skill, it does not follow that it requires more strategical skill. convenient u use tic tac toe rather than smth like chess.
That's because Chess, due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play, is nothing but build order losses and coinflips. Can't just muscle your way to victory in Chess, can't just hope that your opponent is looking away and his dragoon has glitched at the bottom of the ramp. Nope, no skill in chess.
I kid of course--the truth is that different games require different skillsets and have different reasons why they are popular/loved/hated.
Chess doesn't require mechanical skill--but is respected as an epitome of stratagem. However--boxing sells out stadiums and makes millions on Pay-Per-View despite not needing high levels of strategic thought.
One is not better than the other--they're simply different.
|
On February 22 2012 09:00 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 08:33 Redmark wrote:
Less technical requirement allows more strategy. It doesn't matter how much macro there is in tic-tac-toe, because that game is solved. However, if you made it so that chess players had to perform 100 pushups before each move do you think the grandmasters could still win? No, of course not. What if it was only 10 pushups? They would still win, but not always. There would be a natural push toward muscular grandmasters.
It's a sliding scale, and it's not at all clear where a game should be. You could say that SC2 takes less strategy than BW (I don't personally play either game) but it certainly wouldn't be because macro is easier. I don't understand how a more muscular grandmaster implies a less strategical grandmaster. That is your point, right? It seems to me you can hold the world record in pushups and still be the highest ranked grandmaster.
The time spent practicing pushups would be more efficient than time spent practicing strategy. It's not a good analogy, I don't think, but it makes sense. The more time you spend practicing pure mechanics, the less time you spend on individual situations and strategic thought. The guy who spends 50% of his time on pushups and 50% of his time on chess will probably be worse at chess than a 'pure' chess player and worse at pushups than a 'pure' pushup specialist.
Imagine if SC2 had a requirement that you clicked on the exact center of any unit you selected. If you were more than a pixel off, then your unit would explode. (Let's also imagine that people still played this hypothetically-retarded game.) Imagine someone like Hero (or whoever you think the best purely strategic and innovative player is) playing against a robot player in this new version of SC2, who picks random and 2-base all-ins with Marines, Zealots or Lings by grouping all his units on 1 hotkey, A-moving to Hero's base and building a new set with no micro at all. The Hero who plays Normal Starcraft would be destroyed by this hypothetical robot in Explodey-Starcraft, even though it plays with no strategy at all, because the entrance barrier (clicking on a 3x3 area of pixels on any given unit) is so freakishly high. (This also isn't a particularly good analogy.)
|
Doesn't MVP have really high winrate too? If I remember right his winrate is not much less than BW top players. He won pretty much everything in 2011. MMA's winrate in TvZ is pretty ridiculuos too. Saying you can't dominate in SC2 like in BW is quite wrong. To be "The game is too random" is just an excuse. People who lose and say something like this is pathetic.
|
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
|
On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game.
If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it.
|
On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
You kid, dont have a clue
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it.
Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code.
Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter.
Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up!
That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized.
|
give sc2 players another few years of 12-hour-a-day practice and you'll get your prodigies
as for the game itself i still have no idea, leave that to the pros to describe
|
On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it.
IMO things like auto-mining and multiple building selection are good for the game. SC2's problems are separate from that - no-micro hard counters and un-microable units like Colossus and Carriers - and are design philosophy issues. You're attacking a bit of a strawman here. Brood War isn't more interesting because it requires high APM to move your units and mine minerals, it's more interesting because the strategy and unit interactions - Shuttle/Scourge/Corsair, Carrier movement - are deeper. Ideally, SC2 would have that sort of interaction rather than its current high-DPS, low-ceiling units.
|
On February 22 2012 13:58 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code. Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter. Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up! That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized.
Come on. Spare me this bullshit. Of course a mutalisk beating a zealot is a counter, but that's not at all what I was getting at, and the fact that you have to resort to something like that just shows the frailty in your arguement.
And no, it wouldn't. I never claimed that ordering workers to mine was a good thing, you're completely missing the point.
Maybe in that regard it is. But in every other place it is doing the exact opposite, which is the problem.
On February 22 2012 14:01 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. IMO things like auto-mining and multiple building selection are good for the game. SC2's problems are separate from that - no-micro hard counters and un-microable units like Colossus and Carriers - and are design philosophy issues. You're attacking a bit of a strawman here. Brood War isn't more interesting because it requires high APM to move your units and mine minerals, it's more interesting because the strategy and unit interactions - Shuttle/Scourge/Corsair, Carrier movement - are deeper. Ideally, SC2 would have that sort of interaction rather than its current high-DPS, low-ceiling units.
Err, that's exactly what I'm attacking though? I keep hearing that SC2 has potential for so much more strategy, but if you look at how the units are designed, no not really, and that's the major problem with the game right now.
|
On February 22 2012 13:58 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code. Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter. Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up! That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized.
You completely missed the point. What he's saying is that while the UI in SCII allows better unit control, because the way the units are designed there's very little to spend the better control on compared to BW.
|
On February 22 2012 13:58 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code. Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter. Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up! That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized.
It's not the same. Right now late game ZvP is basically this: if the Protoss has Colossus and the Zerg doesn't have Broodlords, the Protoss wins. If the Zerg has Broodlords and the Protoss doesn't have Archons and a Mothership, the Zerg wins. If the Protoss has Archons and a Mothership against Broodlord/Corrupter/Infestor, the Protoss wins. Early game TvZ is similar: Lings give the Z map control. Hellions immediately take it away because they own lings so much. Roaches take it back because Hellions can't hurt them. Some counters have to exist, but there are SC2 units that are all-or-nothing; either they hard-counter and win or they're totally useless.
|
On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it.
If your strategy is beaten by something as mindless as a no-micro hard counter, then it's probably not a very good strategy to begin with.
And that is basically the pro-SC2 arguement - SC2 shifts the focus from macromanagement to strategy. Now it's a given that you're going to have an army. The question is, what are you going to do with it? Obviously you're not going to walk into a choke covered by tanks, you don't do that in BW and you don't do that in SC2. So, now players can attack at different angles, get into good positions, multiprong, etc. etc. much better in SC2 than they were able to do in BW, and players are starting to exploit that. And again, there's the micro potential. Now, in SC2, people micro to use their army in an advantageous way, such as marine splits, forcefields, infestors, etc instead of microing just so their units don't act stupid, like the infamous Dragoon AI.
I also want to touch on a topic that I think hasn't been really brought up before: if you took BW strategies and imported them into SC2, then the BW strategies would fall apart. For example, in TvP BW, T sets up tank lines and engages dragoons with seiged tanks. Does that work in SC2? Of course not, T has to be for the most part mobile. In TvZ timings before lurker tech with bio, you see a lot of lines and clumps (if they can happen) when marines engage Zerg. In SC2 those lines and clumps would be prime targets for banelings.
So, because they require different strategy, and because SC2 focuses more on strategy, I don't think taking away macro difficulties is really, you know, bad.
|
On February 22 2012 14:05 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:58 dsousa wrote:On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code. Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter. Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up! That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized. Come on. Spare me this bullshit. Of course a mutalisk beating a zealot is a counter, but that's not at all what I was getting at, and the fact that you have to resort to something like that just shows the frailty in your arguement. And no, it wouldn't. I never claimed that ordering workers to mine was a good thing, you're completely missing the point. Maybe in that regard it is. But in every other place it is doing the exact opposite, which is the problem. Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 14:01 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. IMO things like auto-mining and multiple building selection are good for the game. SC2's problems are separate from that - no-micro hard counters and un-microable units like Colossus and Carriers - and are design philosophy issues. You're attacking a bit of a strawman here. Brood War isn't more interesting because it requires high APM to move your units and mine minerals, it's more interesting because the strategy and unit interactions - Shuttle/Scourge/Corsair, Carrier movement - are deeper. Ideally, SC2 would have that sort of interaction rather than its current high-DPS, low-ceiling units. Err, that's exactly what I'm attacking though? I keep hearing that SC2 has potential for so much more strategy, but if you look at how the units are designed, no not really, and that's the major problem with the game right now.
I'm talking about the last sentence in your post, where you're saying he hasn't watched Brood War. He didn't say Brood War was just a bunch of clicks; that's you putting words in his mouth. I agree with you about the game.
|
On February 22 2012 14:05 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:58 dsousa wrote:On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code. Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter. Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up! That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized. Come on. Spare me this bullshit. Of course a mutalisk beating a zealot is a counter, but that's not at all what I was getting at, and the fact that you have to resort to something like that just shows the frailty in your arguement. And no, it wouldn't. I never claimed that ordering workers to mine was a good thing, you're completely missing the point. Maybe in that regard it is. But in every other place it is doing the exact opposite, which is the problem. Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 14:01 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. IMO things like auto-mining and multiple building selection are good for the game. SC2's problems are separate from that - no-micro hard counters and un-microable units like Colossus and Carriers - and are design philosophy issues. You're attacking a bit of a strawman here. Brood War isn't more interesting because it requires high APM to move your units and mine minerals, it's more interesting because the strategy and unit interactions - Shuttle/Scourge/Corsair, Carrier movement - are deeper. Ideally, SC2 would have that sort of interaction rather than its current high-DPS, low-ceiling units. Err, that's exactly what I'm attacking though? I keep hearing that SC2 has potential for so much more strategy, but if you look at how the units are designed, no not really, and that's the major problem with the game right now.
You said... SC2 introduced X..... and I pointed out how BW also had X. (X = "no micro hardcoubter").
You were no doubt talking about the armored/light units and the concept of doing bonus damage to armored/light. I simply showed how there was already a mechanism in BW for having hard counters. It wasn't introduced in SC2, BW had it too with ground/air attack and apparently that game did fine.
BW people try to quantify and qualify why you hate SC2, but the fact is you hate SC2 because its replacing your beloved BW, not because its a bad game..... its an AMAZING GAME and still vastly undiscovered.
|
On February 22 2012 14:10 Thienan567 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. If your strategy is beaten by something as mindless as a no-micro hard counter, then it's probably not a very good strategy to begin with. And that is basically the pro-SC2 arguement - SC2 shifts the focus from macromanagement to strategy. Now it's a given that you're going to have an army. The question is, what are you going to do with it? Obviously you're not going to walk into a choke covered by tanks, you don't do that in BW and you don't do that in SC2. So, now players can attack at different angles, get into good positions, multiprong, etc. etc. much better in SC2 than they were able to do in BW, and players are starting to exploit that. And again, there's the micro potential. Now, in SC2, people micro to use their army in an advantageous way, such as marine splits, forcefields, infestors, etc instead of microing just so their units don't act stupid, like the infamous Dragoon AI. I also want to touch on a topic that I think hasn't been really brought up before: if you took BW strategies and imported them into SC2, then the BW strategies would fall apart. For example, in TvP BW, T sets up tank lines and engages dragoons with seiged tanks. Does that work in SC2? Of course not, T has to be for the most part mobile. In TvZ timings before lurker tech with bio, you see a lot of lines and clumps (if they can happen) when marines engage Zerg. In SC2 those lines and clumps would be prime targets for banelings. So, because they require different strategy, and because SC2 focuses more on strategy, I don't think taking away macro difficulties is really, you know, bad.
You completely misunderstood my point.
I'm not talking about overall strategy, but rather individual unit relationships.
Marauders and stalkers are the infamous example of this. You can micro your stalkers all you want, but they will always lose to an amoved army of equal cost marauders. Compare this to vultures and dragoons in BW. If you amove them, equal cost dragoons will crush face. BUT, if you micro your vultures correctly so that you place your mines just right, the vultures will actually win. And thats not even all! Well the vultures are laying mines the dragoon controller can spread his dragoons or try to stutter step them back in attempts to avoid. Ultimately, dragoons are considered a "counter" but their advantage is far more mitigable than that of marauders over stalkers.
This is just one of several examples. Of course there are some of these cases in SC2 where it is similar, but even then it is not the same. With marines and banelings, it is nearly impossible to trade evenly (marines for banelings), unless you have basically computer-esque micro. Even then, the best you can hope is to trade even.
And err, I don't understand your second point. Okay? Why is that a problem? The roles of the two races have switched. In BW, Protoss has to be the mobile race, recalling/dropping/flanking/etc, where as terran has to execute the right push, well protecting all of his vital units. I don't think the two games should behave EXACTLY like eachother.
|
The octopus in the room: does it REALLY matter if the "skill" level of pros doesn't compare between the two games?
Think about it. What is the point of professional gaming? Above all: entertainment, and making money from it. People pay to watch skilled players play a game. Because it's fun. Really, you can bitch about skill and how foreigners don't compare to Koreans at BW, but does it honestly matter if the competitive SC2 scene is flourishing and fulfilling its purpose as an entertainment industry?
I don't think so. Sure, BW requires more mechanics yadda yadda etc. but what are you accomplishing by complaining that SC2 pros can't play as well in BW as BW pros can? That doesn't accomplish anything. Seems to me like just an argument to rattle people up. Starcraft 2 is fun to play and fun to watch. The pros create some awesome games that we can re-watch time and time again at our leisure. Who cares if they made awesome games without having to send each individual worker to mine the minerals? Do these mechanics make the game more fun to watch? I don't see casters getting excited every time a worker is put into gas. Manually. Every single game.
Sure, it gives you something to be proud of. BW pros are good at a game that is very difficult to be the best at! That's great! That's awesome! But at the end of the day if you're comparing two entertainment industries based on the skill requirement of the games in question, well, that discussion can rattle on for ages. What's next, the hippopotamus in the room: real life sports take more skill than Brood War? Oh boy. See, I just don't understand the point of these sorts of community messages. They don't really accomplish anything.
|
On February 22 2012 14:20 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 14:05 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:58 dsousa wrote:On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. Well, I assure you that SC2 and BW are both computer games that have no other user interface other than keyboard and a mouse, so it is simply key and mouse clicks. There is nothing spiritual going on... both games are just "clicks and actions" that can be reduced to binary code. Really, in BW there aren't any "no-micro" hard counter? Can zealots hit mutas? If not, then that's a "no micro" hard counter. Would BW be better still if you had to re-tell the worker to mine after each mineral it collected? Imagine the options that would open up! That's silly, SC2 is taking the genre in the right direction. Towards a real time strategy game where unit control is not a limiting factor, but instead the quality of your strategy and tactics is emphasized. Come on. Spare me this bullshit. Of course a mutalisk beating a zealot is a counter, but that's not at all what I was getting at, and the fact that you have to resort to something like that just shows the frailty in your arguement. And no, it wouldn't. I never claimed that ordering workers to mine was a good thing, you're completely missing the point. Maybe in that regard it is. But in every other place it is doing the exact opposite, which is the problem. On February 22 2012 14:01 LuckoftheIrish wrote:On February 22 2012 13:38 1Eris1 wrote:On February 22 2012 13:34 dsousa wrote:
The fact the BW forces people to tell each worker to mine, to select each individual producing building and that you can only select 12 units at a time is an unnatural limiting factor (obviously).
SC2 has removed these mindless mechanics, making more advanced army maneuvers more achievable and giving top pro's more room for strategic and creative thinking.
To extend an analogy, Chess would not be more interesting if the players had to do push-up between moves and IMO BW isn't more interesting because it requires so many clicks and actions to perform simple tasks.
And at the same time it also introduced concepts like no-micro hard counters, which take away huge chunks from the strategic aspect of the game. If you really think BW is just a bunch of clicks and actions I highly doubt you've actually bothered to watch it. IMO things like auto-mining and multiple building selection are good for the game. SC2's problems are separate from that - no-micro hard counters and un-microable units like Colossus and Carriers - and are design philosophy issues. You're attacking a bit of a strawman here. Brood War isn't more interesting because it requires high APM to move your units and mine minerals, it's more interesting because the strategy and unit interactions - Shuttle/Scourge/Corsair, Carrier movement - are deeper. Ideally, SC2 would have that sort of interaction rather than its current high-DPS, low-ceiling units. Err, that's exactly what I'm attacking though? I keep hearing that SC2 has potential for so much more strategy, but if you look at how the units are designed, no not really, and that's the major problem with the game right now. You said... SC2 introduced X..... and I pointed out how BW also had X. You were no doubt talking about the armored/light units and the concept of doing bonus damage to armored/light. I simply showed how there was already a mechanism in BW for having hard counters. It wasn't introduced in SC2, BW had it too with ground/air attack and apparently that game did fine. BW people try to quantify and qualify why you hate SC2, but the fact is you hate SC2 because its replacing your beloved BW, not because its a bad game..... its an AMAZING GAME and still vastly undiscovered.
Comparing air to ground and what I'm talking about is just 
And,you'll have to quote me where I said I hate SC2. I simply don't think it's on the level of BW yet, and that Blizzard has a lot of work to do if they want to get it to that point. I'd like to see it reach that point, doesn't mean I don't like the game, I do like it, and I've probably watched 100s of hours of it by now. But it's not on the level (yet!) some of you guys keep trying to portray it as, and that's what pisses me off.
|
I have to laugh at all the people trying to make arguments that SC2 is a strategically superior game when a huge majority of strategic shifts have come because of Blizzard, not the players. When (or if) the game is balanced and the final product is finally left alone, will we be seeing huge gameplay changes like we did in BW? Will massive shifts in gameplay happen in SC2 to increase its lifespan to almost 1 1/2 decades, like it did in BW, without the addition of content?
Until that happens you cannot fully say SC2 has greater strategic depth when it hasn't passed the test if the game can stand up without Blizzard's help.
Just a slight jab, I have to wonder how much more I will be enlightened by the tactical usage of the Colossus in 12 years from now? I'm honestly not feeling too confident in that.
|
On February 22 2012 14:25 setzer wrote:
I have to laugh at all the people trying to make arguments that SC2 is a strategically superior game when a huge majority of strategic shifts have come because of Blizzard, not the players. When (or if) the game is balanced and the final product is finally left alone, will we be seeing huge gameplay changes like we did in BW? Will massive shifts in gameplay happen in SC2 to increase its lifespan to almost 1 1/2 decades, like it did in BW, without the addition of content?
Until that happens you cannot fully say SC2 has greater strategic depth when it hasn't passed the test if the game can stand up without Blizzard's help.
Just a slight jab, I have to wonder how much more I will be enlightened by the tactical usage of the Colossus in 12 years from now? I'm honestly not feeling too confident in that.
SC2 can be the strategically superior game. It isn't right now, and maybe it won't because of unit design issues. But it could be in theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
