|
On October 26 2011 23:13 iPAndi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 22:55 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
I feel this should be spotlighted, Definately worth it. I agree 98% with you OP. Fact is tho. people want sc2 to be as mechanicly genius as BW. But instead of making a thread like this (with valid points) they QQ and hate on us Sc2 players from mediocre to pro.
NO, we dont want sc2 to be as mechanicaly difficult as BW. Sc2 mechanics are good. If you started reading through responses, youd probably see what we need from BW, dont just read the OP and respond with what you THINK bw die hard fans want on sc2. Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 22:55 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Hope the Bw veterans reads this and give's some decent feedback. Interesting to read! It has been given. 7 pages of it. Read before you reply.
When the fk did I say people wanted it to be more difficult? I said people want sc2 to be as mechanicly genius as BW.
Mechanicly genius = more difficult to you?
My point was the design of mechanics. Like when units get into 1 ball in sc2 and in BW theres 4-6 hotkeys for a mass zealot army.
And I've red through most of the replies and when 4-5 bw "veterans" answer without a valid point or a simple question.
Just saying
"Why you would want the sequel to one of the greatest game of all time NOT have most of its best features is beyond me. BW was amazing, and trying to keep what made it so good should be a priority. The questions were right on spot. Bring back the Starcraft in Starcraft 2."
and
"try it this way: if you have a great race-game with great physics...
would you ruin the physics in his successor just to have a different game?"
My point beeing. It's nice to read what the BW veterans think of this I meant how they felt about the OP not my simple reply. Oh And i've played BW for 10 years, Do I consider myself a BW veteran? no
|
On October 26 2011 23:56 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 23:13 iPAndi wrote:On October 26 2011 22:55 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
I feel this should be spotlighted, Definately worth it. I agree 98% with you OP. Fact iS tho. people WanT sc2 to be as mechanicly Genius as BW. But instead of making a thread like this (with valid points) they QQ and hate on us Sc2 players from mediocre to PrO.
NO, we dont WanT sc2 to be as mechanicaly difficult as BW. Sc2 mechanics are good. If you started reading through responses, youd probably see What we need from BW, dont just read the OP and respond with What you THINK bw die hard fans WanT on sc2. On October 26 2011 22:55 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Hope the Bw veterans reads this and give's some decent feedback. Interesting to read! It has been given. 7 pages of it. Read before you reply. When the fk did I say people wanted it to be more difficult? I SaiD people WanT sc2 to be as mechanicly Genius as BW. Mechanicly Genius = more difficult to you? My Point was the design of mechanics. Like when units get Into 1 ball in sc2 and in BW theres 4-6 hotkeys for a Mass zealOt army. And I've red through most of the replies and when 4-5 bw "veterans" Answer without a valid Point or a simple question. just saying "Why you would WanT the sequel to ONE of the greatest game of all time NOT have most of its best features iS beyond me. BW was amazing, and trying to keep What made it so good should be a priority. The questions were right on spot. Bring back the Starcraft in Starcraft 2." and "try it this Way: if you have a great race-game with great physics... would you Ruin the physics in his successor just to have a different game?" My Point beeing. It's Nice to read What the BW veterans think of this I meant how they felt about the OP not my simple reply. Oh And i've played BW for 10 years, Do I consider myself a BW veteran? no
I responded right below that post. is that a valid response?
|
|
|
well...sc2 imo should always be an improvement from bw. for example, bw terran bio werent that great in tvt and tvp, but in sc2 they fixed that so i'm ok with it. but obviously, there're still tons of thing in sc2 that has not improve (which you know). but since there're 2 more expansions, they got 2 more chances to make it greater or as great as bw. so..yeah, still waiting for the day.
|
The reason why all the foreigners moved to sc2 is because BW has been around long enough for most of the possibilities to be explored and the most efficient ways of playing it have been found. The BW strategy forum for all I know can be closed down since any player here will not have any interesting questions to ask. Everything can be found on liquipedia and from then on it's just a matter of practice till your eyes bleed.
The minimum requirement is 300apm and 2 years of full time experience, if not more. Only then can you come up with some small breakthrough and have any sort of impact on the scene.
sc2 right now is like back when hydra lurk was a legit and viable strat in zvt BW. The way BW was played back in those days is very different from how it is now because people soon found more efficient ways to play after thousands of practice games in progamer houses.
The thing is because the sc2 game engine and how the units move is so fluid and smooth, the most efficient way of playing is going to be figured out by the koreans even faster. When the game has been more or less "solved" it is going to come down to raw apm again to distinguish the good from the great, and we would be back to square one mechanics whining every day.
In 2-3 years foreigners are going to be obsolete again because we simply value having a social life more than playing a computer game to its absolute limits. Unless someone comes up with an incredibly revolutionary strat or build and somehow can stop people from watching his replays and copying him, raw apm will always win because it is a computer game and not real life war where a million other factors like army morale and finance factor in.
The only way for sc2 to stay in the "hydra lurk is viable zvt" stage is for new units to come out every few years to create chaos and force the whole metagame to shift. Otherwise foreigners don't stand a fucking chance vs the koreans.
|
On October 27 2011 00:02 d_wAy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 23:56 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:On October 26 2011 23:13 iPAndi wrote:On October 26 2011 22:55 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
I feel this should be spotlighted, Definately worth it. I agree 98% with you OP. Fact iS tho. people WanT sc2 to be as mechanicly Genius as BW. But instead of making a thread like this (with valid points) they QQ and hate on us Sc2 players from mediocre to PrO.
NO, we dont WanT sc2 to be as mechanicaly difficult as BW. Sc2 mechanics are good. If you started reading through responses, youd probably see What we need from BW, dont just read the OP and respond with What you THINK bw die hard fans WanT on sc2. On October 26 2011 22:55 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Hope the Bw veterans reads this and give's some decent feedback. Interesting to read! It has been given. 7 pages of it. Read before you reply. When the fk did I say people wanted it to be more difficult? I SaiD people WanT sc2 to be as mechanicly Genius as BW. Mechanicly Genius = more difficult to you? My Point was the design of mechanics. Like when units get Into 1 ball in sc2 and in BW theres 4-6 hotkeys for a Mass zealOt army. And I've red through most of the replies and when 4-5 bw "veterans" Answer without a valid Point or a simple question. just saying "Why you would WanT the sequel to ONE of the greatest game of all time NOT have most of its best features iS beyond me. BW was amazing, and trying to keep What made it so good should be a priority. The questions were right on spot. Bring back the Starcraft in Starcraft 2." and "try it this Way: if you have a great race-game with great physics... would you Ruin the physics in his successor just to have a different game?" My Point beeing. It's Nice to read What the BW veterans think of this I meant how they felt about the OP not my simple reply. Oh And i've played BW for 10 years, Do I consider myself a BW veteran? no I responded right below that post. is that a valid response?
Well you replied to my post with exactly the same as the one I quoted so same reply to you as I think my point was misunderstood.
other then that
For those of us who DID play broodwar
Dude I did, your post pretty much tell us others who played broodwar, how we are supposed to feel instead of saying that's your opinion. I definately dont feel that way, and I'm sure there are others like me.
|
Canada13389 Posts
In part its because some problems in SC2 could be solved with BW units or something similar. Protoss has trouble vs. Mutalisks. So they give us the tempest. This borrows from corsair with its anti air AoE.
The issue is it is AoE vs Light and is supposed to fight 40-50 mutas (?!?!?!?) in lategame. The cost and speed of the tempest based on what we have seen makes it seem like its not very effective at defending bases from mutas. This is the problem protoss has. We can't defend huge packs of mobile mutas easily between bases. The tempest might be like a thor and sit there to help but they already said the thor isn't very good and with only one or two they die very fast and aren't worth the investment.
Corsair is fast, small, not quite massable but you can get a small number of them AoE AtA unit. It is what would help us most in defending Muta Harass between bases and counterattacks. They don't want to give it to us because we could just go play BW if we wanted corsairs.
Poor logic, the unit itself was well designed and served a solid purpose and achieved what it was supposed to - filling a particular hole in protoss play. Stalkers suck vs Mutas in relatively even numbers because they do terrible dmg. vs light. Even if you can mass stalkers they arent as mobile as mutas. Pheonix die pretty quick to mutas in straight up fights unless you already have more pheonix than mutas and can keep the numbers of mutalisks low.
I feel that even if pheonix just had similar AoE to an archon or EVEN a little less they would instantly become so much more usable. But then again what do I know?
Some of it isnt about having all the same units as BW. It is about seeing a unit that would and could fix a problem that exists in BW and is well designed and proven to be good over many years of play. We then look at SC2 and think about what the holes are and how the BW unit would and could fill it just as well, maybe better, potentially worse than it did in BW.
Corsair - small AtA AoE. (vs. Pheonix bonus light, super fast)
Reaver - big damage, slow, fragile GtG AoE -- can harass (vs. Collossus big damage, not as slow, not as fragile, AoE -- can't harass)
Carrier - microable, could attack units outside of range, siege type (vs. Carrier not microable, can't attack more than the initially targetted unit outside of Range - interceptors die quickly but i think this is due to no overkill non missile based attacks and fault of the game engine more than anything else).
For terran people would prefer goliath to the new warhound but we need to remember that Marines are already super super good GtA so for a goiliath whose strength was GtA to be around its kind of pointless. Though I feel people want a marine replacement when going mech which is understandable. Goliath would be bad vs protoss since the range on collossus would demolish them before they get close enough to really do damage to them if they use their air attack. No real Flying units come out of protoss. Against Zerg the marine is much better and more mobile than the goliath would be so why not use them if you can micro well to fight Zerg.
For Zerg. Lurker. Lurker would give them space control. Which Zerg definitely needs to make the mobile terran army run around less sniping outlying bases easily and also to help prevent siege lines and mech units from walking across the map freely. Right now they leapfrog less and just walk straight to Zerg more. It could be because Z is playing it wrong but I feel that a lurker type unit would force a leapfrog or a slow push a little more than what is currently available. But then again good infestor play can achieve the same results. If the marines come up without tanks fungal. If tanks leapfrog then the infestor is not doing damage but instead slowing the others down.
I play protoss so I can see holes to be filled easier there and their BW counterparts that could do the job better so if others have insight point it out.
TL;DR -
Some of it isn't about having all the same units as BW. It is about seeing a unit that would and could fix a problem that exists in BW and is well designed and proven to be good over many years of play. We then look at SC2 and think about what the holes are and how the BW unit would and could fill it just as well, maybe better, potentially worse than it did in BW is always a possibility too.
A good example of potentially worse is the carrier whose intereceptors die too quick to non missile base GtA and the unit itself unable to shoot more than one thing outside its initial range - re: no micro.
|
Anyone who has not seen Kennigit's interview with Dustin Browder should go see it.
I totally agree with them that they need to think of ways to pull food out of 200/200 deathballs which is not as exciting to watch all the time. BW w its stream of armies continuing fighting for more than 20 secs was amazing to watch, n though we will not have that in SC2, at least making it viable to have more skirmishes (value in pulling food out of a deathball for all races) throughout the match will make it better to watch n play.
|
On October 26 2011 10:25 shadowboxer wrote:
BW was a better game than SC2 hands down. The problem is that BW was a lot better for competitive players and not necessarily for building a marketable product. BW was extremely hard, and as such getting into it as a new player was extremely difficult. SC2 is not hard, or at least not in the same way BW was. If you have a desire to become really good at SC2, you can do that as long as you put in the hard work and dedication.
You couldn't do that in BW at all. If you wanted to be a top player you HAD to move to Korea and you had to play 14+ hours a day because the game was pure speed and the ability to combine that speed with good strategy, tactics and unit control. In SC2 the game does almost all of this for you, so players that will never actually be good at the game can still play it at a certain level and feel like they have an understanding of the game and why pros do what they do.
BW is a game competitive gamers appreciate, but SC2 is an e-sport. It's similar to Counter-Strike 1.6 in the sense that for competitive gamers, it was the perfect shooter. Nothing will top it, ever, hands down. 1.6 is not a marketable e-sport though, and something will come along and eventually beat it out in the e-sports market just like SC2 did to BW.
I think this is the main misconception people have of BW.
What makes BW great is that you never have enough time to do everything. You can either
1) build probes and put them on minerals when they come out,
or
2) build more zealots,
or
3) micro your dragoons from the zerglings.
You don't have time to do all three. Your aim is not to do all three things but to be able to make the ballsy split second decision to build more zealots over making more probes or saving your goons because you realize that that is your top priority at that place and time. That is superior game sense and knowledge, not mechanics.
When you get better at playing you may be able to squeeze a second action in, but to try and do everything in BW and play a perfect game is impossible. A lot of BW is about creating havoc for your opponent and forcing him to choose the wrong priority.
That's something people again and again do not understand.
|
On October 27 2011 00:12 pyrogenetix wrote:
The reason why all the foreigners moved to sc2 is because BW has been around long enough for most of the possibilities to be explored and the most efficient ways of playing it have been found. The BW strategy forum for all I know can be closed down since any player here will not have any interesting questions to ask. Everything can be found on liquipedia and from then on it's just a matter of practice till your eyes bleed.
The minimum requirement is 300apm and 2 years of full time experience, if not more. Only then can you come up with some small breakthrough and have any sort of impact on the scene.
sc2 right now is like back when hydra lurk was a legit and viable strat in zvt BW. The way BW was played back in those days is very different from how it is now because people soon found more efficient ways to play after thousands of practice games in progamer houses.
The thing is because the sc2 game engine and how the units move is so fluid and smooth, the most efficient way of playing is going to be figured out by the koreans even faster. When the game has been more or less "solved" it is going to come down to raw apm again to distinguish the good from the great, and we would be back to square one mechanics whining every day.
In 2-3 years foreigners are going to be obsolete again because we simply value having a social life more than playing a computer game to its absolute limits. Unless someone comes up with an incredibly revolutionary strat or build and somehow can stop people from watching his replays and copying him, raw apm will always win because it is a computer game and not real life war where a million other factors like army morale and finance factor in.
The only way for sc2 to stay in the "hydra lurk is viable zvt" stage is for new units to come out every few years to create chaos and force the whole metagame to shift. Otherwise foreigners don't stand a fucking chance vs the koreans.
Except that the foreign scene is evolving. More money from the foreign country is being put into the game, and full time pro team with houses are emerging. With the same amount of training, I don't see why korean should have an undisputed upper hand.
|
On October 27 2011 00:36 Merlimoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:12 pyrogenetix wrote:
The reason why all the foreigners moved to sc2 is because BW has been around long enough for most of the possibilities to be explored and the most efficient ways of playing it have been found. The BW strategy forum for all I know can be closed down since any player here will not have any interesting questions to ask. Everything can be found on liquipedia and from then on it's just a matter of practice till your eyes bleed.
The minimum requirement is 300apm and 2 years of full time experience, if not more. Only then can you come up with some small breakthrough and have any sort of impact on the scene.
sc2 right now is like back when hydra lurk was a legit and viable strat in zvt BW. The way BW was played back in those days is very different from how it is now because people soon found more efficient ways to play after thousands of practice games in progamer houses.
The thing is because the sc2 game engine and how the units move is so fluid and smooth, the most efficient way of playing is going to be figured out by the koreans even faster. When the game has been more or less "solved" it is going to come down to raw apm again to distinguish the good from the great, and we would be back to square one mechanics whining every day.
In 2-3 years foreigners are going to be obsolete again because we simply value having a social life more than playing a computer game to its absolute limits. Unless someone comes up with an incredibly revolutionary strat or build and somehow can stop people from watching his replays and copying him, raw apm will always win because it is a computer game and not real life war where a million other factors like army morale and finance factor in.
The only way for sc2 to stay in the "hydra lurk is viable zvt" stage is for new units to come out every few years to create chaos and force the whole metagame to shift. Otherwise foreigners don't stand a fucking chance vs the koreans. Except that the foreign scene is evolving. More money from the foreign country is being put into the game, and full time pro team with houses are emerging. With the same amount of training, I don't see why korean should have an undisputed upper hand.
That's your problem right there.
|
BW has been around for 12 years, built a pro scene around it in Korea and defined E-sports. So its no surprise that players make comparisons to BW when playing SC2. If you ask me, I want SC2 to be different from BW, but still keeping the important units and abilities that make the game exciting. Things like muta micro, reaver micro, wraith micro, I could go on and on. This way, SC2 can have its own form of uniqueness while retaining important aspects of BW so as to increase the entertainment value.
There's this fantastic game BW that Blizzard created and then there's SC2, which is also amazing in its own regard. If Blizzard wants this game to last, wouldn't it be obvious that they should try to replicate and innovate upon the elements that made BW such a great game? If you ask me, Blizzard did a great job with WOL, but most of the new units in HoTS don't make any sense to me. I know it's still being tested, and I sincerely hope they axe some of the new units.
So if you do not want SC2 to become more like BW, what do you want it to become like? I sure as hell don't want SC2 to become more like CnC, but looking at the HoTS units and the Colossus, it's heading in that direction (Dustin Browder: Ex CnC designer). I just hope Blizzard knows what its doing and good luck to them.
|
On October 27 2011 00:38 pyrogenetix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:36 Merlimoo wrote:On October 27 2011 00:12 pyrogenetix wrote:
The reason why all the foreigners moved to sc2 is because BW has been around long enough for most of the possibilities to be explored and the most efficient ways of playing it have been found. The BW strategy forum for all I know can be closed down since any player here will not have any interesting questions to ask. Everything can be found on liquipedia and from then on it's just a matter of practice till your eyes bleed.
The minimum requirement is 300apm and 2 years of full time experience, if not more. Only then can you come up with some small breakthrough and have any sort of impact on the scene.
sc2 right now is like back when hydra lurk was a legit and viable strat in zvt BW. The way BW was played back in those days is very different from how it is now because people soon found more efficient ways to play after thousands of practice games in progamer houses.
The thing is because the sc2 game engine and how the units move is so fluid and smooth, the most efficient way of playing is going to be figured out by the koreans even faster. When the game has been more or less "solved" it is going to come down to raw apm again to distinguish the good from the great, and we would be back to square one mechanics whining every day.
In 2-3 years foreigners are going to be obsolete again because we simply value having a social life more than playing a computer game to its absolute limits. Unless someone comes up with an incredibly revolutionary strat or build and somehow can stop people from watching his replays and copying him, raw apm will always win because it is a computer game and not real life war where a million other factors like army morale and finance factor in.
The only way for sc2 to stay in the "hydra lurk is viable zvt" stage is for new units to come out every few years to create chaos and force the whole metagame to shift. Otherwise foreigners don't stand a fucking chance vs the koreans. Except that the foreign scene is evolving. More money from the foreign country is being put into the game, and full time pro team with houses are emerging. With the same amount of training, I don't see why korean should have an undisputed upper hand. That's your problem right there.
So the EG house is not full time trained ?
Even a lot of european team are full time now. Look at Stephano winning everyone, even not full time trained yet.
Whatever, we will see. For me, the korean supremacy is at an end. I don't want to argue, future will prove me right.
|
On October 26 2011 23:56 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Just saying
"Why you would want the sequel to one of the greatest game of all time NOT have most of its best features is beyond me. BW was amazing, and trying to keep what made it so good should be a priority. The questions were right on spot. Bring back the Starcraft in Starcraft 2."
and
"try it this way: if you have a great race-game with great physics...
would you ruin the physics in his successor just to have a different game?"
Well put my friend.
|
On October 26 2011 23:56 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Just saying
"Why you would want the sequel to one of the greatest game of all time NOT have most of its best features is beyond me. BW was amazing, and trying to keep what made it so good should be a priority. The questions were right on spot. Bring back the Starcraft in Starcraft 2."
and
"try it this way: if you have a great race-game with great physics...
would you ruin the physics in his successor just to have a different game?"
Isn't it what Starcraft Phoenix is all about ?
|
what we need from broodwar are not its outdated UI. We need the brilliant units and interactions that made it so balanced and so fun to watch.
|
On October 26 2011 21:18 Markwerf wrote:
brood war is hugely overrated as a game.
It was good even great for it's time but compared by today's standard it's just terrible. It's too much mechanics and pointlessly clicking this and that. SC2 is much cleaner in that you don't have to mindlessly repeat actions like sending scv's to work etc. which leaves more focus on other things like timings and micro. SC2 also doesn't have all the dodgy bugs that bw has like dodgy reavers, spider mines, dragoons etc. The 12 unit cap for a group is another terrible thing that I'm glad is gone in sc2,
it has nothing to do with tactics but only mechanical skill.
BW had the luck that lots of those glitches worked out well and allowed for cute micro moves. That is the only thing I can complain about perhaps in sc2 compared to bw, bw had some cute micro moves and some 'cleaner' battles. The 'deatball' does get much more chaotic in sc2 and there are some cool moves lacking perhaps like stop lurker but that can be implemented in the expansion quite well still.
This site is just heavily biased towards BW because it was founded by people loving BW, it's only logical that there is a bias here. Sequels almost never live up to the original because people that judge the sequel are usually huge fans of the original and thus think of the original as the golden standard.
I agree as far as that reducing mechanical skill is, in general, a good thing for the game (such as unlimited control groups and multiple building selection). It does allow more focus on more interesting things like you mentioned. For those that disagree, would reducing the BW cap from 12 to 6 units have made BW a better game? I doubt it!
|
Reason says this:
It's not about turning SC2 into BW. It's about including those aspects of BW that made it a good RTS into its successor. Those characteristics are not exclusive to BW, but BW had more of them than most other RTS games, hence why it seems like people want the game to be more BW-ish.
Now for my more personal and emotionally loaded response...
We have new CnC games. We have new AoE (that suck). We have new DoW games, we have LOL, HON, etc. But why would I want aspects of those games in my SC? There's a reason I play SC and not CnC, and that is, IT'S DIFFERENT. There are characteristics that should ALWAYS be in SC games, otherwise it's not SC. I don't think it's wrong in any way to say things should be more BWy. Otherwise just chuck the name and call it something else. If I wanted another game, I'd play it.
That being said I've already decided to switch back to BW when HoTS comes out. No hard feelings guys, just not what I was looking for. And I imagine that's why most people want things to get more BW, at their gut level.
|
The high BW skill cap makes for great entertainment, but it also makes the game very noob-unfriendly. So I think the reason people want a BW-like game is that they are more interested in watching the pro scene than actually playing the game. Or at least that's my opinion anyway.
|
This is just like every other SC2/BW thread in that people say "SC2 shouldn't be like BW. Go play BW if you want that", then in the same breath they talk about how amazing things are in SC2, which ALWAYS happen to be the aspects that are most similar to BW.
When you talk about great SC2 games that have insane marine/army splitting, constant back-and-forth engagements, and constant harrassing on multiple fronts, you are basically praising BW, because those were some of the most iconic parts of BW. It's sad that even Blizzard is falling into this trap where Dustin Browder states flat out that SC2 shouldn't be BW, but then at the same time talk about how they're trying to discourage deathballs, which is (surprise, surprise) something that makes the game more like BW. This hypocrisy is made all the worse by the fact that Blizzard is deliberately adding more BW-esque units into the game (viper, map control units) while still telling the community that SC2 shouldn't be more like BW.
I don't want SC2 to be a one-to-one copy of BW (dragoon pathing FTL). I don't think anyone other than the most fanatical of fanboys want that. But we DO want SC2 to have the same aspects that made BW an e-sport. I see nothing wrong with that. It may be a different game, but it's still a STARCRAFT game, and it should maintain the things that made Starcraft great, especially since the best things about SC2 are the ones that are mostly mimicked in BW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
