|
On October 26 2011 13:33 Falling wrote:
I don't think I agree at all with the idea that foreigners have switched to SC2 because they dislike the mechanical difficulty in BW. There's a lot of reasons they would switch, but I have yet to hear a BW foreigner that have said there reason for switching is multi-base selection and smart casting. Although they're quiet about it now, they were quite vocally against such things when they were first announced pre-Beta.
However, I feel the OP misses the point of all the BW comparisons. I don't think anyone wants a BW clone. However, all the comparisons about roles that SC2 is missing, about unit dynamics and a decreased emphasis on possible moments of brilliance.
So generally we're just looking at what interactions, strategic possibilities, and fun moments SC2 is missing and often the best set of examples are in BW. But no, we definitely want a direct port. But something like it, something that fills the missing roles.
In the end though this thread skirts pretty close to the BW vs SC2 debates.
Probably because it isn't true at all. If anything, it's a barrier to entry when most players are used to U.I.'s that are more user friendly to begin with. Anyway, I've already addressed this and so have many others. There are several reasons as to why the base is thinning out and the U.I. isn't the half of it.
We have to look at the bigger picture of what the game entails and what the game is missing.
We have a fair consensus:
- Zerg are missing a heavy siege unit. The ability to slow down an army with another spell is a plus.
- Protoss need a unit that can provide harassment.
- Terran have good utility as is.
|
On October 26 2011 12:44 lyAsakura wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:18 Probulous wrote:On October 26 2011 12:09 Termit wrote:
What I hate most of all is how people are saying that BW were more mechanics than strategy and SC2 is so balanced when it comes to mechanics and strategy.
I have a question. What is it in SC2 strategy that overcomes the strategy depth in BW?
And one thing that screws up the game so there is this ball vs ball and no smaller battles thru the game is because of how the race mechanics is in sc2. Because of larvae mechanics, warp in mechanic and reactor addons you remax so damn quick. Well people that say that are just ignorant. I never watched the beginnings of BW as a spectator sport. Did it start with ball verse ball action? I can't help but feel that one of the main reasons we have this ball action is because pros can still win with it. The move towards marine splitting, multiple drops and discarding of the protoss deathball all suggest an evolution towards more action across the map. No, brood war was never ball on ball. It went from microing the few units you had to having more units by macro. I don't see the ignorance in his post.
Thanks, like I said I didn't follow BW in the early stages. I wasn't saying he was ignorant I was saying that " people are saying that BW were more mechanics than strategy and SC2 is so balanced when it comes to mechanics and strategy" are ignorant. I think my post makes sense.
|
On October 26 2011 13:07 hmmm... wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:40 hitpoint wrote:
I strongly disagree. BW is unpopular now because it's old. Simple as that. It was an amazing game and we should strive to be as close to it as possible and as far from WC3 as possible. Sometimes I think people want it the other way around though.. no, like the op said, BW is unpopular now bc it's too hard for many people and western pros' lack of skill in the game caused the western audience to lose any interest they may have had left in the game. according to ur logic, bw should not be popular in korea but that is a contradiction.
I think that's totally wrong and I don't understand why people think that way. Isn't it kind of demeaning to think that people will only watch a game if people that look the same as them are winning?
The reason pro BW isn't popular in the west was because it had zero exposure. Aside from WCG every year there were was basically no way to watch live games with English commentary. When GomTV started doing English commentary for BW it was a massive boost to popularity even though it was only once a week at 4AM. If Blizzard had put even half as much effort into promoting BW as it is SC2 I have no doubt that it would be hugely popular.
|
Personally I hope they are able to kill the ball vs. ball strategies of WoL. It's just not as entertaining (to watch AND play) as a large army spread out all over the place.
And I say that as someone who BARELY ever played BW.
Watching 6 colossus or 20 tanks or 30 marauders ball up and practically A move isn't fun to watch over and over.
|
forgive me if im mistaken as its a long time since i playing wc3 but wasnt there this function where units are arranged into columns instead of balls? would that help improve spectator quality?
|
I don't know how every single poster opening threads manages to be as rude as humanly possible when choosing the title. If you want to start a discussion do it right. Meaning formulate the question neutrally.
For example instead of saying 'Why SC2 should not be getting more BW-y' (Which basically says everyone who disagrees with that statement is a moron) you could ask ' Would Sc2 benefit (or suffer) from introducing (more) BW mechanics?'.
And the No-Native-Speaker argument cannot be applied here since you choose the put in the effort to start a discussion in an english forum. I don't care about spelling or grammar but people needlessly und probably involuntary behaving like assholes really pisses me off.
On Topic:
The whole discussion is pointless since you only can argue when you have the relevant data. We don't have any data because HotS isn't even in beta yet. Thus any argument how close it ever will be to the actual facts will still be wrong.
|
On October 26 2011 16:07 thoradycus wrote:
forgive me if im mistaken as its a long time since i playing wc3 but wasnt there this function where units are arranged into columns instead of balls? would that help improve spectator quality?
I'm not sure how this was in wc3, but im just going to say yes, because anything is better than what it's like right now lol
I mean, i can't imagine that being any worse, unless units actually climbed on each others backs.
|
Whether you post this or not. After seeing the HotS expansion votes I can clearly tell that a significant majority of SC2 players who don't want BW features are completely in denial.
The Defiler 2.0 unit (viper) is the most popular change in HotS, notice that is also closest to one of the most popular BW spellcasters.
We see posts like this all the time, yet statistics tell the exact opposite, the Anti-BW guys are on the Pro-BW bandwagon whether they realise it or not.
On October 26 2011 18:33 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 16:07 thoradycus wrote:
forgive me if im mistaken as its a long time since i playing wc3 but wasnt there this function where units are arranged into columns instead of balls? would that help improve spectator quality? I'm not sure how this was in wc3, but im just going to say yes, because anything is better than what it's like right now lol I mean, i can't imagine that being any worse, unless units actually climbed on each others backs.
Warcraft 3 had similar grid style pathing to BW (but optimised), and I don't remember anyone saying it sucked. Blizzard is simply in denial and I'd say its due to the programmers not wanting to change the uber-advanced pathing algorithm and coming up with some sort of excuse. Programmers have a lot of pride in their work, and don't like it when people want to throw it away. I know from experience.
|
On October 26 2011 18:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:Whether you post this or not. After seeing the HotS expansion votes I can clearly tell that a significant majority of SC2 players who don't want BW features are completely in denial. The Defiler 2.0 unit (viper) is the most popular change in HotS, notice that is also closest to one of the most popular BW spellcasters. We see posts like this all the time, yet statistics tell the exact opposite, the Anti-BW guys are on the Pro-BW bandwagon whether they realise it or not.Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 18:33 pzea469 wrote:On October 26 2011 16:07 thoradycus wrote:
forgive me if im mistaken as its a long time since i playing wc3 but wasnt there this function where units are arranged into columns instead of balls? would that help improve spectator quality? I'm not sure how this was in wc3, but im just going to say yes, because anything is better than what it's like right now lol I mean, i can't imagine that being any worse, unless units actually climbed on each others backs. Warcraft 3 had similar grid style pathing to BW (but optimised), and I don't remember anyone saying it sucked. Blizzard is simply in denial and I'd say its due to the programmers not wanting to change the uber-advanced pathing algorithm and coming up with some sort of excuse. Programmers have a lot of pride in their work, and don't like it when people want to throw it away. I know from experience.
Man that pathing sounds perfect then. I hate the balling up soo much in SC2. I can't express my hate towards it enough.
|
I love BW and still find it far superior game design-, balance- and style-wise.
however, SC2 has:
-a lot more players
-is newer
-is still changing a lot
-has more userfriendly controls
-the gap between pros and noobs is a lot smaller (especially at the beginning)
The problem with SC2 is that it dropped a lot of the things that made BW so awesome: interaction between units, real micro, interesting units, etc.
SC2 just does not use the whole spectrum of design that BW used. sure there are new things introduced, but these new things actually play with the framework of the game, which is something I think should not be done as it has widely negative effects that then need to be counterbalanced with other negative effects. (example: macro mechanics (mules, chronoboost, inject larva), forcefields, warp in, etc.)
Another major problem is the movement AI. sure, it should be better than BW, but the movement AI of SC2 is I think one of the main problems the game has. AoE cannot be properly balanced because of the clumping/balling.
I don't want BW but I want that the superior aspects of BW are built into SC2.
I really wonder who designed the BW units but I'm pretty sure that it's not the same people that designed the SC2 units. stuff like roaches, marauders, unique units, hellions etc. just don't make sense.
I don't really expect this to change but I still have hope. (when I hear Dustin Bowder talk about the game it just makes me cringe. It always sounds as if he hasn't really much of a clue.)
|
I completly disagree with OP; SC2 has brought several great improvements (such as no limit control groups) but BW is still superior in the vast majority of sectors: : My main complaint; because BW is so hard and complicated its impossible to master. Thats why players have to focus on certain aspects. Some are known for their micro.. other for their macro.. other for their decision making.. while in SC2 if you show a pro match with names blured there is almost no way you can say who is playing/ thats why fans care more about drama / country / story than the game..
|
Exactly, great idea. Everyone will eventually switch to SC2 when they see the money and community going into it, as it is evolving at a much faster rate
|
On October 26 2011 10:05 neSix wrote:
I think you're missing the point of those arguments: It's not the game itself we wish to copy, but rather it's the characteristics that made the game so great that we hope to see more of in SC2.
I don't think the (legitimate) goal for anyone is to mimic Brood War. Instead, I think it's to use a game that we loved a benchmark for comparison. It's not that we want the game to be identical, but rather we would like the sequel to make use of aspects that we found exciting, such as space control, drawn-out, spaced-out large battles, the ability to turn an advantage into a victory outright as opposed to just expanding, etc.
It's a valid point but even so it seems that much of the comparison ends with comparing unit X in SC2 to unit Y in BW, and I agree that comparisons should be drawn between the two games, and I agree that certain elements in BW did make it a more enjoyable spectator sport, but we need to allow space for new units to come in without criticizing their roles compared to their BW "counterpart" as it were. For example a thread that was recently closed debated the phoenix being useless compared to corsairs and how the unit should be remade to be almost a carbon copy of the corsair, that's not what we need and that's not the step forward, yes, it may have to deal with the same/similar issues, but they can be approached by several different means, and that then leads to more exciting development.
|
On October 26 2011 10:05 neSix wrote:
I think you're missing the point of those arguments: It's not the game itself we wish to copy, but rather it's the characteristics that made the game so great that we hope to see more of in SC2.
I don't think the (legitimate) goal for anyone is to mimic Brood War. Instead, I think it's to use a game that we loved a benchmark for comparison. It's not that we want the game to be identical, but rather we would like the sequel to make use of aspects that we found exciting, such as space control, drawn-out, spaced-out large battles, the ability to turn an advantage into a victory outright as opposed to just expanding, etc.
i agree with this. bw was more positional. There was a rock paper scissor happening in BW, but that dynamic played out in map positions and lots of positional joustings and feignings. In SC2, there is more emphasis on the rock paper scissors, and positional play is greatly greatly reduced, so that all the important things that determine a battle in SC2 happens within 10 seconds, rather than in SC1 where there were 10 minutes leading to the battle where grounds were given and taken, battles were fought over cliffs and minute advantages, and you can see one player gaining more and more territory on the map until finally something gives.
u don't see that in SC2, because SC2 is all focused on units. The designers didn't appreciate the beauty of the terrain. I guess one way to sum it up is that in SC2, everything that's important to see can be seen on the game screen. in SC1, controlling the minimap was must more important.
even within SC2, there is the dynamic where sometimes positional play is important, and sometimes rock/paper/scissor is important. the epitome of the rock/paper/scissor is protoss vs protoss, where you either build order win or you don't. the epitome of positional play in SC2 is mech terran vs marine marauder terran.
I hope this gets the point across to anyone reading that things happening positionally is much more interesting to play and watch than things happening based on rock/paper/scissor. it's why TvT is fun to watch, but PvP, for the most part is, "oh, rock beats scissor, gg."
|
On October 26 2011 20:48 TI13 wrote:
I completly disagree with OP; SC2 has brought several great improvements (such as no limit control groups) but BW is still superior in the vast majority of sectors: : My main complaint; because BW is so hard and complicated its impossible to master. Thats why players have to focus on certain aspects. Some are known for their micro.. other for their macro.. other for their decision making.. while in SC2 if you show a pro match with names blured there is almost no way you can say who is playing/ thats why fans care more about drama / country / story than the game..
You're comparing skill caps from a game that has been around for over 10 years to one that is just over 2 years old, the skill caps will not be comparable for a long time to come because of the fact that BW has had a long time to develop and be played by the pros, whereas SC2 is still having lots of changes applied to it and therefore the metagame is rapidly changing. We don't know in 2-3 years time whether things will still be the same way, or maybe in 2-3 years we will have people known for their macro/micro/decision making, even now we see some players being credited for their good micro, but my main point is you can't line these two games up side-by-side and have a straight comparison, it's too early and this has been said time and time again.
|
When I see people complaining about ball vs ball battles in sc2 I wonder...
During this kind of fight, there will be a winner (most of the time). So why the future looser will engage ? Maybe some good spells will have win him the fight, but in this case the risk/reward ratio was probably not well addressed.
I think that this kind of battle will eventually stop, not because of game changes, but because of players changes. As the game will get older and older and as the player will be able to see outright if they have a good chance of winning a blob battle, they will try to apply new tactics to avoid this kind of battle. With theses new tactics, the blober will have to prepare for this potential threat and adapt too.
Blizzard does not like this kind of battle, it probably does not take much to remove them. They just don't know how yet. Since the game is evolving so fast: patches, hots et the next one, we can't go in this kind of stuff right now. We will have to wait a few years/months after the game is all set up, like BW has. It is really are to see this kind of chance appears with the rules being constantly changing. Enjoy theses changes in the mean time 
|
People don't want SC2 to be BW, they want SC2 to have characteristics of BW which made BW so awesome. I am not talking about workers cannot be rallied to mineral patches and unlimited unit selection. I mean things like micro. In SC2 everything looks like made to remove any micro from the game. Dustin browder does not even understand the meaning of micro, micro for him is turning on banshee's cloak lol.. Compare reaver with colossus and say that you wouldn't like to have reaver in SC2.
|
well Brood War was an amazing game, if SC2 replicates it it shouldn't be bad but... yeah, I definately agree with OP in general.
|
You don't see much micro yet, because it is not needed to win.
When everything will stabilize and when every pro will have the same knowledge of the (balanced) game, the micro will make the difference. And only then we will see it grow.
|
On October 26 2011 21:09 Alpina wrote:
People don't want SC2 to be BW, they want SC2 to have characteristics of BW which made BW so awesome. I am not talking about workers cannot be rallied to mineral patches and unlimited unit selection. I mean things like micro. In SC2 everything looks like made to remove any micro from the game. Dustin browder does not even understand the meaning of micro, micro for him is turning on banshee's cloak lol.. Compare reaver with colossus and say that you wouldn't like to have reaver in SC2.
There are micro intensive things in Starcraft. Marine-Splits, Immortal drop micro, blink micro, stutter step, ling baneling wars, focusing of the right units, ... .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
