EPTI will worry about the way the game is going later... like after beta. I don't see some things sticking and browder has done amazingly so far.
SC2 is heading in the wrong direction - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
I will worry about the way the game is going later... like after beta. I don't see some things sticking and browder has done amazingly so far. | ||
|
shmoo
United States139 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:09 1nMack1 wrote: As far as seeing less casters than in BW, one can only conclude that you didn't every play/watch BW. Sentries, Infestors and Ghosts are units that appear in the early-mid game and have nothing comparable in brood war. You could suggest that Infestors are like defilers, but that would only further demonstrate you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Further, sentries and infestors have abilities that limit micro, there's nothing like this in brood war. ... somehow you also missed the replicator, but that's not a spellcaster right? I could go on, but what purpose would it serve? Well Alzadar kind of reamed you and crushed your argument so I don't think I really need to spend too much time further demonstrating your inability to grasp the argument. People are claiming there are more casters in HoTS than WoL, which showed to be false. I also showed that the number of casters is equivalent between BW, WoL, and HoTS. Alzadar showed that there are plenty of BW spells that prevent micro. Protoss has both Storm and Maelstrom, which is exactly what Fungal Growth is. So you have no argument there. Your only argument is that some casters come out earlier than in BW. How does that disprove my argument that there are not more casters in HoTS than WoL or BW? It doesn't. How does your argument show there are more micro limiting spells in HoTS than WoL or BW? It doesn't. Take your arrogant attitude and your even worse argument and go listen before speaking again. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly: PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation. ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation. TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation. PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation. PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers. TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up. Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote: People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead. Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly: PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation. ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation. TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation. PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation. PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers. TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up. Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. But that's not actually a good thing. I want SC2 metagame to be stable. I want to be able to use the same openings and general strategies and compositions for 2-3 years or longer as a player, and I want to see it happen on professional levels as well as a spectator. Only when a game is stable like this can you see actual skill be the real separator between the players. Going into a SC2 game wondering what kind of new abusive build will pop up, or what weird new timing and composition will force a win with basically no skill required, or to worry whether the other player will scout it properly or figure out what he's scouting, or who's going to get lucky etc... it makes the game so underwhelming both to play and to watch. Sometimes less is more. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote: People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead. Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly: PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game Archon Templar. No real deviation. ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation. TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation. PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation. PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers. TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up. Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. Those are composition options, though, which aren't the same as strategic options. I'd argue BW has far more strategic options with a single given composition than SC2 does. On October 27 2011 09:50 shmoo wrote: Alzadar showed that there are plenty of BW spells that prevent micro. Protoss has both Storm and Maelstrom, which is exactly what Fungal Growth is. So you have no argument there. You can't look at what the race has so much as what the race can use. Maelstrom was almost unseen - the Dark Archon was not a key unit at all, compared to the Infestor. I can also argue as to why ensnare and stasis aren't equatable to fungal. | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote: People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead. Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly: PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation. ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation. TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation. PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation. PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers. TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up. Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. I've agreed with most of what you have posted in this thread (your use of logic and facts has been enlightening), but I think the above is a result of 10 years of development. The reason SC2 has more compositional variety is because the compositions have not been defined and tested. Given enough time, there can only be certain amount of choices that a player that will be optimal. Eventually SC2 will be the same (or at least closer) and only have a few choices in deciding what kind of armies to make, as other choices have been eliminated through testing. | ||
|
sh4w
United States713 Posts
In BW I can't put all my casting units on 1 hotkey and have smart casting do all the work for me. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:54 Dfgj wrote: Those are composition options, though, which aren't the same as strategic options. I'd argue BW has far more strategic options with a single given composition than SC2 does. Could you elaborate on that? It seems to me that all fundamental strategies are pretty much the same between games. E.g. "if I expand now I will have a weaker army, but in a few minutes my economy will overtake his and I will have the upper hand". Brood War's timings are more figured out, but that's a product of the age of the game more than anything. On October 27 2011 09:58 MCDayC wrote: I've agreed with most of what you have posted in this thread (your use of logic and facts has been enlightening), but I think the above is a result of 10 years of development. The reason SC2 has more compositional variety is because the compositions have not been defined and tested. Given enough time, there can only be certain amount of choices that a player that will be optimal. Eventually SC2 will be the same (or at least closer) and only have a few choices in deciding what kind of armies to make, as other choices have been eliminated through testing. This may be, but I'm not convinced. Blizzard seems determined to make sure both bio and mech are viable in all match-ups, for example. We can't do much but wait and see. For the time being, I LOVE seeing all the variety. The MMA vs MVP series was so beautiful, completely different styles with their own strengths and weaknesses. On October 27 2011 09:59 sh4w wrote: You can't really compare spells in BW vs spells in SC2 though... In BW I can't put all my casting units on 1 hotkey and have smart casting do all the work for me. Smart-casting is always portrayed as making it stupid-easy to cast spells. All it does is make the interface intuitive and do what the player actually wants. You still have to aim and click for every individual spell, there are just fewer hoops than in BW. Professional players still miss forcefields and fungals all the time. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
It's the same process. | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote: People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead. Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly: PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation. ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation. TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation. PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation. PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers. TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up. Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. I don't think you've played very much BW if you think this lol. Not to mention, you're wrong in every instance except ZvZ, pretty much. Even ZvZ in SC2 is pretty much just one thing, roach wars. Occasionally you have a small baneling engagement but you can choose to never use them and be fine. Examples you missed: PvP: opening Templar archives for DT expand 4 gate (how is this different from PvP in SC2?) TvT: wraith builds (really popular lately) or dropship TvT. In SC2 you really only have two options as well; mech, or biomech. PvT: Terran has biomech all in options. Also various levels of vulture/tank compositions. Protoss can open reaver, Templar, 2 or 3 base carrier on certain maps, 3 base arbiter, etc. Lot of options here. Not that many in SC2, though. Terran has one or two options more but Protoss has fewer. PvZ: FFE/nexus first are standard in SC2 now as well, unless you want to do a one base all in or timing attack. Those exist in BW as well. In BW players can go Bisu build, corsair/reaver, or zealot/archon. On certain maps you can even go carrier. BW actually has more options on the P side than SC2. Zergs have a lot of options; pure hydra, hydra drops, muta/hydra, lurker/ling, lurker/hydra/ling, ling/muta etc etc. Usually into defiler ultra lategame, occasionally add guardians or something. TvZ being the only matchup with choices=lol. What was the point of this silly comparison anyway? To shit on BW? I think this is why people recently have been judging others based on join date. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:00 Alzadar wrote: Could you elaborate on that? It seems to me that all fundamental strategies are pretty much the same between games. E.g. "if I expand now I will have a weaker army, but in a few minutes my economy will overtake his and I will have the upper hand". Brood War's timings are more figured out, but that's a product of the age of the game more than anything. I'd say that because the BW compositions are more flexible and well-rounded, you have more options than 'every game is vulture/tank vP' would suggest. While it's true that BW compositions are comparatively limited (generally because the best options have been figured out), BW standard unit compositions have a wider range of potential. Compare, say, the vulture to the hellion, or the flexibility of the P armies. Furthermore, as the poster above showed: there are a lot of ways to get to a composition, and varying distributions of it. This is similar to earlygame SC2 as well. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:05 SuperYo1000 wrote: isnt HOTS still in alpha stage? Do you remember WOL in alpha stage? Diamond Backs?,Radar Tower? Starbase?,Soul hunters? Tempest with melee attackin interceptors?, star relic?, stasis orb? many other units. Its pretty unlikely that there will be no changes/cuts/additions to the current roster of units/abilitys before beta Do you remember WOL up to 6 months into release too? Reapers on steroids and 2 Gate Zealots killing every Zerg FE, Tanks doing infinity damage to everything, Barracks before Depots, Steppes of War, Desert Oasis, Roach range 3, Khaydarin Amulet, I don't even remember all of it anymore. HotS may go through Beta but that almost certainly won't bring it up to the competitive level, and we'll be back in the stone age of WoL again and have to endure horrible strategies, horrible gameplay and very probably horrible balance for months before we get to the point we're at currently in WoL. The only salvation for HotS is to cut almost every new unit and feature, especially the new exotic ones. One new unit per race is already pushing it tbh, no matter what that unit is like. | ||
|
drcatellino
Canada346 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:53 Talin wrote: Finally a voice of reason and the correct criticism of HotS which isn't about balance but about how they're fucking up the game with completely inappropriate units and abilities. -_- But that's not actually a good thing. I want SC2 metagame to be stable. I want to be able to use the same openings and general strategies and compositions for 2-3 years or longer as a player, and I want to see it happen on professional levels as well as a spectator. Only when a game is stable like this can you see actual skill be the real separator between the players. Going into a SC2 game wondering what kind of new abusive build will pop up, or what weird new timing and composition will force a win with basically no skill required, or to worry whether the other player will scout it properly or figure out what he's scouting, or who's going to get lucky etc... it makes the game so underwhelming both to play and to watch. Sometimes less is more. That's actually an interesting question: Is a figured-out game more fun to watch than a new and unstable game ? On a personal level if the game is just going to be a hand speed contest with the strategic part of it mostly gone, I'll just stop watching. What got me into watching esports in the first place is all the wanky crazy stuff that came out of the beta (thanks TLO), which I tried to emulate as a player. Many TLer seems so conservative about what the game and esports should be. On October 27 2011 10:12 Talin wrote: HotS may go through Beta but that almost certainly won't bring it up to the competitive level, and we'll be back in the stone age of WoL again and have to endure horrible strategies, horrible gameplay and very probably horrible balance for months before we get to the point we're at currently in WoL. The only salvation for HotS is to cut almost every new unit and feature, especially the new exotic ones. One new unit per race is already pushing it tbh, no matter what that unit is like. I suspect that when WoL was released you hated it because it was not enough similar to BW, and then with HotS you are pretending it will break the WoL dynamic, and then when LotV is released you will remember the good old days of HotS. Like you really hate every new thing that you can't understand immediatly. Sounds a little bit like my grandfather  | ||
|
shmoo
United States139 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:50 shmoo wrote: Alzadar showed that there are plenty of BW spells that prevent micro. Protoss has both Storm and Maelstrom, which is exactly what Fungal Growth is. So you have no argument there. You can't look at what the race has so much as what the race can use. Maelstrom was almost unseen - the Dark Archon was not a key unit at all, compared to the Infestor. I can also argue as to why ensnare and stasis aren't equatable to fungal. I don't care how often it was used. I am strictly comparing the number of spell casters between the games and how their spells effect micro. Fungal growth existed in BW, it was just divided between two different spells on two different units. Maelstrom and Storm = fungal growth. The root doesn't last as long, nor does it do as much damage as the BW storm. Stasis removes units from the fight, which is what force field does. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:10 wherebugsgo wrote: TvZ being the only matchup with choices=lol. What was the point of this silly comparison anyway? To shit on BW? I think this is why people recently have been judging others based on join date. I don't really want to get into an extensive debate about the various match-ups of Brood War. I did omit to mention Wraith style TvT, which is certainly sexy but only seems to ever happen on that one map (Beltway?), and it's pretty new, not quite standard yet I'd say. Shit on BW? You're crazy, I love BW, it's just everyone seems to have weird ideas about it that they use to compare with SC2, and they're mostly false. Perhaps I've fallen into the trap myself.  Also, I joined 2 months after you, what? | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Watch games by Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, Stork, Jaedong, Jangbi, Zero, Stats, etc. and you'll see first hand how players make the game their own, with unique strategies and plays that come despite most of the best unit compositions already being known. Choice of unit composition does not necessarily equal strategy, and years of BW has proved this. Edit: alzadar I'm not judging you based on your join date, I'm saying that people have been doing that lately because of posts like the one you made. The SC2/BW comparisons are rather dumb and don't accomplish anything, ultimately. The major things that matter between the two games is that skill level will roughly correlate and that BW is more stable, requires more mechanics, and is more figured-out. That's about it. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:12 drcatellino wrote: That's actually an interesting question: Is a figured-out game more fun to watch than a new and unstable game ? On a personal level if the game is just going to be a hand speed contest with the strategic part of it mostly gone, I'll just stop watching. What got me into watching esports in the first place is all the wanky crazy stuff that came out of the beta (thanks TLO), which I tried to emulate as a player. Many TLer seems so conservative about what the game and esports should be. The strategic part isn't "gone", it's just switched to more of an actual in-game tactics, quick thinking and being able to respond timely and correctly. When somebody comes up with a wanky new build, what does he actually do? He finds a loophole while practicing at home, then he sits and works out a strategy around it, then grinds it in practice for a certain period of time, and when the match actually happens, he executes it on autopilot and wins because his opponent has no idea wtf is going on because he hasn't seen anything like that before. Long-term interest in any competitive discipline is generated by demonstration of skill. Without that, it's all just random, chaotic, and more of a show than anything else. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
Micro exists in SCII and BW, it's just different. SCII micro is micromanaging spellcasters and separating fighting units into different groups to avoid AoE. Marine splitting is used against Banelings, magic box is used against Thors, blink Stalkers have multiple uses, and the list goes on. I absolutely agree with you about the Protoss units. I feel that the additions to Terran and Zerg were really good (of course they need to be balanced a bit better, like the Abduct ability might be overpowered, but stuff like that still needs to be weeded out) and really change how the game is going to be played, but the Protoss units do not affect their gameplay very much, other than the Tempest. The Tempest is a huge game changer and adds a lot to micro because it has an AoE attack. This will force players to separate their air units. Also, you said that this unit would only be useful vs. mass Mutalisk, which is not true. The unit will be useful late game for helping the Colossi against Vikings/Corruptors. Those units are intended to be used to kill the Colossi as fast as possible, which means focus firing, which clumps them together, making them extremely prone to the Tempest's attack, and with Stalker forces, those units are literally screwed without perfect micro. The Oracle is an interesting unit. I like where Blizzard is going, but it's definitely going to need balance changing. Again, the Replicant is a gimmicky piece of shit unit that does not really add very much to SCII. Overall, Blizzard is going in the right direction with HotS, though I'd like it if they would scrap the Replicant for some other unit, preferably something that comes out of the Gateway/Warp Gate. Adding units that aren't supposed to work in a large death ball is definitely the way SCII needs to go because of pathing. This adds more zone control to the game with units like the Shredder and Swarm Host, which is like BW. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Watch BW and you'll see really quickly that stability in builds DOES NOT mean lack of variety, strategy, or anything of the sort. It's not a "hand speed contest" either. Watch games by Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, Stork, Jaedong, Jangbi, Zero, Stats, etc. and you'll see first hand how players make the game their own, with unique strategies and plays that come despite most of the best unit compositions already being known. Choice of unit composition does not necessarily equal strategy, and years of BW has proved this. Yes, but don't you get excited when new strategies are revealed, like mass Queen ZvT or Wraith TvT? I've kind of lost track of what this line of discussion is about. My general point, to be clear, is that SC2 is not as far from BW as some people seem to think, and HotS so far looks like a good expansion that will flesh out the races and provide some new strategies, while still maitaining the same fundamentals. SC2's metagame will evolve over time and probably eventually stabilize like BW's. The best players can consistently differentiate themselves from their inferiors, and all is as it should be. tl;dr I like StarCraft :D | ||
| ||
