|
On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision.
The multitasking is still there, its just different tasks. I would think that there are exploitable traits of the new AI system for example that would allow for better and more efficient engagements in certain scenarios then simply going ball. BW AI needed to be tamed and controlled, and I bet before the competition was high enough, or enough players had the macro saved to muscle memory, people didn't micro their units like they do today.
If it was multitasking in general, I think they are fine, but if it was a specific task they were good at, then they might have a problem.
|
On October 29 2011 14:14 seraphe wrote:
Things like auto-mining, MBS, those are all fine. What I have a problem with is large control groups, which inevitably lead to huge death ball battles, as we've all pretty much agreed on already, and the removal of intense micro requiring units in favor of units that are far less so.
You ask if it's watching pros send workers to mine that's interesting. Nope. It's units that are skill-intensive and high-reward that are fun to watch. Things like reaver harass and storm drops. I know the reaver wouldn't have fit into SC2 very well, because it relied on a buggy AI to balance out its ridiculous damage. But you'd think that they'd implement a substitute that also required a high level of attention, care, and micro to use properly. Instead, you just get colossi, which are the epitome of ball of death lasers pewpew a-move. I won't miss watching Bisu send probes to mine, but I sure as hell will miss him destroy worker lines with fantastic reaver/shuttle play (or lose his shuttle and make us all facepalm).
Likewise with storms, smartcast made it so that storms became easier to use. Just mass HT and they can all rapidly cast storms in succession over a huge area so nobody would ever be able to dodge out of it. So storms themselves had to be nerfed to compensate. Less damage, less aoe, and as a result, less exciting. Landing one means almost nothing. People screamed for Jangbi's fantastic storms because they were devastatingly destructive, ridiculously hard to pull off, and utterly game changing. I don't think anyone will ever cry STOOOOOOORRRRMMMUUUUUUU for the storms in SC2. There's just not as much excitement or tension there.
So yeah. You're right about it being good that unnecessary handicaps were removed. But exchanging units that truly benefited the most from micro skills for a-move units, or dumbing units and spell-casting down and consequently having to nerf them to compensate? I have a problem with that.
This is a very reasonable and well articulated post. Well done.
Personally I can't wait to see what the SC2 scene will be like a year from now.
|
On October 29 2011 16:23 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. You think Blizzard made Brood War so it could become a national sport in Korea? That happened because of the combinations of factors. I guarantee you Blizzard never had the intention of it becoming that big in Korea... Blizzard made the game for the $$$. Just like any other product sold in our world today.
It was a product out of luck. The first and ever perfect RTS. The goal was to make a good game and to make money. I guarantee you there were more passion involved then.
SC2 was the product of a carefully planned formula to make as much money as possible on the success of BW and the RTS eSports hype it created for as little investing and effort as possible.
The truth is out there. That newschool players think SC2 is "great" and "complex" is both amusing and sad at the same time.
I know alot of players that couldnt play BW for shit that love SC2. You might think it's a good thing and that it made the community bigger. "Better" graphics had the same impact. A better community of more ignorant players only gives Activision more money.
What you had to invest in yourself to become good at BW isn't close to SC2.
|
On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision.
BW wasn't made for the love of eSports, for crying out loud...did you read Chill's edit to the OP? If you expect SC2 fans to respect BW then be respectful yourself. BW is harder than SC2 but SC2 is not easy enough that the absolute best players can't be differentiated in terms of macro.
|
On October 29 2011 14:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:
Since many people are saying BW is "better" because it is "harder" to play, I suggest Blizzard patch BW so that each control group can hold max 1 unit instead of 12, remove rally points from all production buildings, and remove the ability to automatically attack ("a" attack) so they have to manually right click on every unit to attack.
This would definitely increase the "skill ceiling" for BW, thus making BW a better game.
User was temp banned for this post.
not to be an ass, but i think this guy has a pretty valid point and got temp banned. he's just using an extreme example to counter BW player arguments about making the game harder.
|
countering those arguments like banelings on marines
|
On October 29 2011 15:53 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 13:58 Oktyabr wrote:On October 29 2011 13:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:On October 29 2011 13:42 Oktyabr wrote:On October 29 2011 13:32 sluggaslamoo wrote:On October 29 2011 13:17 Oktyabr wrote:On October 29 2011 13:12 sluggaslamoo wrote:On October 29 2011 12:53 Oktyabr wrote:On October 29 2011 12:49 sluggaslamoo wrote:On October 29 2011 12:44 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
And yet they didn't implement it, and it's not to make the 'game harder for esports' because there was no motivation or foreknowledge at all to make SC1 a professional esport when they were developing it, but simply a design choice. They realized it was a bad choice, and fixed it in SC2. If it wasn't a bad idea, they wouldn't have allowed automining after worker creation in SC2. Honestly if we are gonna go down that road, why not get rid of creep spread and larva inject, or just make them automatic, seeing as there is never a time you shouldn't be doing this. Because they aren't even comparable, and you do not want to have them done ALL the time. Creep spread requires decision making to place a tumor at a preferable location for efficiency, and there are times when you wouldn't want to spread creep because there are hellions waiting at your door step. Likewise some people wouldn't want to spend that 25 energy on injecting immediately, and would rather use it on a fresh creep tumor or even pool up for transfuse. There is decision making at every turn. A freshly created worker is going to be mining 95% of the time. 99% of the time the queen will be injecting (unless its the second built queen which drops a tumor before going to the natural and then after that its all injects), if you do a Spanishiwa build you will already have some queens for creep tumors or transfusion. The amount of decision making for creep spread is the same as deciding which mineral patch I should send my scv to (which adds to mining efficiency) and whether I'm being harassed or not. 95% of the time its creep spread finished, creep spread some more, just like sending workers to mine. Honestly its a really poor argument to start off with, because when SC3 comes out, im sure SC2 fanboys will also start complaining about toggled unit production, automatic creep spread, and more C&C units. No, because you actually have to decide on where to extend the tumor. Sometimes you need it to go inward towards your base, sometimes you need to connect your natural to your main, and sometimes you need it to go in different directions if your natural is wide and open. So no, AI won't help you in WHERE would you want it at all. And again, you don't want it to spread when it's within sight of enemy forces, because for obvious reasons they would just walk forward to kill it (i.e hellions). There are also cases of queens dropping multiple tumors at the same spot in order to make creep spread go even faster. So yes, queens can pool energy for multiple reasons. Sigh ... why would you pool energy for dropping creep tumors in the same spot? The only reason that happens is because the energy was pooled anyway, it wasn't a decision, there was just lots of free energy to spend. You always spend your energy, if you need more energy you make more queens because you are gonna use them for defense anyway, against banshees, etc. When an scv pops out of a building, sometimes I won't send it to mine, sometimes I will make it build a building instead (as it pops) so that I don't have to pull an scv that's mining, sometimes I will send it to a mineral patch that isn't being mined even if I'm at a stage where I have 15 scvs mining. Sometimes I won't send it to mine because I'm busy micro-ing. In the end it doesn't make that much of a difference, it can be automated. Hell I can automine my scv after building anyways. Once you get past early game there is almost no decision making in creep spreading, because you have so many creep tumors its just a matter of how fast and how often you can remember to creep spread. People lose creep tumors all the time, in the end you have so many creep tumors it doesn't even matter, you just lay more of them. If you were gonna automate creep spread though you wouldn't have tumors, you would just have the creep continuously spread from your buildings, thus achieving the same effect without the need for useless clicks. Because obviously sometimes you don't have a choice. You can't just drop a tumor in front of hellions; you have to get rid of them first and this leads to pooling of energy. Sometimes you don't need that many injects immediately because you don't have the money to spend it, dropping multiple tumors at the same spot gets rid of that energy. How would automating creep spread without creep tumors give other races a chance to remove the creep spread? The existence of a tumor adds to the strategic depth of the game because now it forces other races to consider spending resources to get rid of it. Exactly, taking MBS, automine, smart-casting away from the game also removes strategic depth from the game. There are players that can do certain builds that no other player can, also how can Savior distract players and create opportunities cost effective encounters when players have less to focus on? Like I said Inject would be a toggle, so you can still pool energy just turn it off, but you can still inject without the need for useless clicks. "Strategic depth" is still there, you just don't have to click every time you want to inject. And obviously I'm not going to send a worker to mine when my base is being harassed either, just like when there are units near my creep, which people don't seem to care about more often than not anyway and suicide their creep tumors to siege tanks. Face it, its a hypocritical argument. You want the mechanical difficulty of SC2, you don't like it when SC2 mechanics are made easier, just like BW players don't like when their mechanics are made easier. Its the exact same thing. There are plenty of "useless" actions in SC2 which you don't want to change, but are quick to point out the "useless" actions in BW. Like I said its a terrible argument to point out, and the same argument is going to appear when SC3 appears. You're confusing decision making and mechanical difficulty. I give up. I don't know if you saw my response a couple pages back but: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=280168¤tpage=83#1656If you don't consider that to be decision making, then what aspect does that sort of situation fall under?
Mechanical competency. Barring 2,3,4 which is difficult to prioritize because it is entirely situational dependent, ANY player who possesses a certain level of common sense would always rate sending workers to mine/building supply to the back if 2,3,4 required his immediate attention.
Sending workers for mining/building supply would never be more important than making sure that his drop doesn't fly into a turret - if his drop flies into a turret while he sends a worker to mine, it's obviously him being not capable enough to pay sufficient attention.
I'll give an example of my own. Say you're doing a 2 base, 7 gate blink stalker push against a Zerg's third. You know that your warp cycles are coming up very soon. This would be your following thought process:
1) If the enemy forces are too overwhelming, I can't blink-micro individual stalkers properly and I'm better off blinking them off all at once in order to pay attention and not delay the next set of warp-in.
2) If I have more than enough stalkers and it appears that the zerg doesn't have enough yet, I can afford to hit his third while quickly warp-ing in because I know I will have ENOUGH TIME to go back to my stalkers for blinking action before any of them dies.
Is this a very complex thought process to you? Is this really strategic? Obviously if you're competent enough you would just hit his third regardless of his army size if you know you're quick enough with warp-ins while handling blink micro at the same time.
If you were too busy blinking individual stalkers back in a head-up fight and you end up delaying your warp-in cycle by 10 seconds, did you make the conscious, strategic decision while doing a cost & benefit analysis of delaying the cycles in order to achieve more cost-effectiveness with blinking? No. All it means is that you need a ton more practice with multi-tasking to minimize the delay.
Granted, everyone past a certain level of play can get the prioritization of these events right, and with this I mean whether to send a probe to mine or whether I should pay attention to how I cast my psionic storms in a fight that is coming up in the next 5 seconds. Only mechanically proficient players can execute all of them effectively within a specified amount of time.
|
On October 29 2011 16:31 Cyrox wrote:
It was a product out of luck. The first and ever perfect RTS. The goal was to make a good game and to make money. I guarantee you there were more passion involved then.
SC2 was the product of a carefully planned formula to make as much money as possible on the success of BW and the RTS eSports hype it created for as little investing and effort as possible.
The truth is out there. That newschool players think SC2 is "great" and "complex" is both amusing and sad at the same time.
I know alot of players that couldnt play BW for shit that love SC2. You might think it's a good thing and that it made the community bigger. "Better" graphics had the same impact. A better community of more ignorant players only gives Activision more money.
What you had to invest in yourself to become good at BW isn't close to SC2.
Dude...just stop. Seriously. It's not funny any more.
It's harder to hit A on iCCup then to get to Grandmaster. It's harder to be at the level at which you can take games of progamers. BW is harder, we get it, but SC2 is still complex. Is it simpler in comparison to BW? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that it has a high level of complexity. StarCraft 2 was in production for a very long time, and cost 100 million dollars or something. If they were half-assing to make a sub-par product to ride BW's success, then they would have, and they didn't.
Stop the spite. SC2 isn't BW, BW is better, whatever. The fact that SC2 is successful isn't a result of riding BW's success, it's not because Activision is tricking the 'ignorant' playerbase into buying a subpar product, it's successful because it's a great game and people love it. And there are millions of people who love it.
|
On October 29 2011 16:33 HellionDrop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 14:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:
Since many people are saying BW is "better" because it is "harder" to play, I suggest Blizzard patch BW so that each control group can hold max 1 unit instead of 12, remove rally points from all production buildings, and remove the ability to automatically attack ("a" attack) so they have to manually right click on every unit to attack.
This would definitely increase the "skill ceiling" for BW, thus making BW a better game.
User was temp banned for this post. not to be an ass, but i think this guy has a pretty valid point and got temp banned. he's just using an extreme example to counter BW player arguments about making the game harder.
I agree.
|
On October 29 2011 16:38 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:31 Cyrox wrote:
It was a product out of luck. The first and ever perfect RTS. The goal was to make a good game and to make money. I guarantee you there were more passion involved then.
SC2 was the product of a carefully planned formula to make as much money as possible on the success of BW and the RTS eSports hype it created for as little investing and effort as possible.
The truth is out there. That newschool players think SC2 is "great" and "complex" is both amusing and sad at the same time.
I know alot of players that couldnt play BW for shit that love SC2. You might think it's a good thing and that it made the community bigger. "Better" graphics had the same impact. A better community of more ignorant players only gives Activision more money.
What you had to invest in yourself to become good at BW isn't close to SC2. Dude...just stop. Seriously. It's not funny any more. It's harder to hit A on iCCup then to get to Grandmaster. It's harder to be at the level at which you can take games of progamers. BW is harder, we get it, but SC2 is still complex. Is it simpler in comparison to BW? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that it has a high level of complexity. StarCraft 2 was in production for a very long time, and cost 100 million dollars or something. If they were half-assing to make a sub-par product to ride BW's success, then they would have, and they didn't. Stop the spite. SC2 isn't BW, BW is better, whatever. The fact that SC2 is successful isn't a result of riding BW's success, it's not because Activision is tricking the 'ignorant' playerbase into buying a subpar product, it's successful because it's a great game and people love it. And there are millions of people who love it.
Sure it's a good game compared to all games. Compared to good esports games ? Barely qualifies as one. Also, as I have already explained, "millions" of people watch, play and participate in the community because alot of other people does that, because of the PR created by Activision employees. It's a manufactured fad.
I mean no offense but it's important to get the truth out there. I'm sorry.
|
On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision.
I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg.
I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves.
It really saddens me to see such animosity from BW diehards towards SC2. You don't have to love it, but give it a fair chance. They're both beautiful games. If you didn't approach it with the idea in your head "I hate Activision, I hate SC2, this is a scrub game, MBS and automine are blasphemy", you would appreciate the game, I am sure of it.
|
I read a couple of comments here and people seem to misunderstand , that players like Jaedong , Flash and Bisu wouldn't differentiate themselves from your average joe WC3 player , because the game design is easier ... You are all wrong , they will still wipe the floor with the inferior players , when they get a good understanding of the game , i don't know if it will be as brutal or not as in BW though .
|
On October 29 2011 16:47 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg. I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves.
Of course. It's all part of activisions plan to slander the great pillars of light. How can you represent yourself fully when the game holds you down I ask you ? The man is up there controlling the games for the sake of profit.
Rise up! Keep the man down!
|
On October 29 2011 16:47 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg. I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves. It really saddens me to see such animosity from BW diehards towards SC2. You don't have to love it, but give it a fair chance. They're both beautiful games. If you didn't approach it with the idea in your head "I hate Activision, I hate SC2, this is a scrub game, MBS and automine are blasphemy", you would appreciate the game, I am sure of it.
July was also on the tail end of retiring his BW career because he couldnt keep up. Like Nada and Boxer.
You can't even begin to compare July past his prime vs the best players BW has ever seen. Everything you mentioned that pro's occasionally do wrong, JD, Bisu, Flash might do once every 100games, thats the kind of improvement we all expect to happen if they all of a sudden switched over and practiced full time. That and the ungodly perfect marine splitting/blink micro, think of the AI videos we saw of perfect micro, think of that happening in a tournament game.
|
On October 29 2011 16:47 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg. I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves. It really saddens me to see such animosity from BW diehards towards SC2. You don't have to love it, but give it a fair chance. They're both beautiful games. If you didn't approach it with the idea in your head "I hate Activision, I hate SC2, this is a scrub game, MBS and automine are blasphemy", you would appreciate the game, I am sure of it.
Hey, sorry man! That's a great post.
I don't REALLY hate SC2. Just trolling.
I don't like it either though. Maybe in the end I will give it a chance.
Time for lunch, peace out!
|
On October 29 2011 16:33 HellionDrop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 14:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:
Since many people are saying BW is "better" because it is "harder" to play, I suggest Blizzard patch BW so that each control group can hold max 1 unit instead of 12, remove rally points from all production buildings, and remove the ability to automatically attack ("a" attack) so they have to manually right click on every unit to attack.
This would definitely increase the "skill ceiling" for BW, thus making BW a better game.
User was temp banned for this post. not to be an ass, but i think this guy has a pretty valid point and got temp banned. he's just using an extreme example to counter BW player arguments about making the game harder.
No, thats an absolutely retarded point. Same as saying
Since many people are saying SC2 is "better" because you dont have to struggle with the interface to play, I suggest Blizzard patch sc2 so that macro could be done with toggles, and low health units would automatically retreat during a fight, the spells automatically cast themselves on the optimal targets, and all the macro mechanics occurred automatically.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole is never a good point.
On October 29 2011 16:53 Cyrox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:47 Alzadar wrote:On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg. I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves. It really saddens me to see such animosity from BW diehards towards SC2. You don't have to love it, but give it a fair chance. They're both beautiful games. If you didn't approach it with the idea in your head "I hate Activision, I hate SC2, this is a scrub game, MBS and automine are blasphemy", you would appreciate the game, I am sure of it. Hey, sorry man! That's a great post. I don't REALLY hate SC2. Just trolling. I don't like it either though. Maybe in the end I will give it a chance. Time for lunch, peace out!
I dont think its only the mechanics that set those players apart. Deep game sense, knowledge, on the fly decision making and star sense are what really define the best players
There seems to be some kinda myth about BW being a game where the person who macros better wins. That really only applies at a low level, at the highest level its more like 'who can fuck with the other guys mind the most while still doing everything you need to'
|
On October 29 2011 16:53 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:47 Alzadar wrote:On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg. I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves. It really saddens me to see such animosity from BW diehards towards SC2. You don't have to love it, but give it a fair chance. They're both beautiful games. If you didn't approach it with the idea in your head "I hate Activision, I hate SC2, this is a scrub game, MBS and automine are blasphemy", you would appreciate the game, I am sure of it. July was also on the tail end of retiring his BW career because he couldnt keep up. Like Nada and Boxer. You can't even begin to compare July past his prime vs the best players BW has ever seen. Everything you mentioned that pro's occasionally do wrong, JD, Bisu, Flash might do once every 100games, thats the kind of improvement we all expect to happen if they all of a sudden switched over and practiced full time. That and the ungodly perfect marine splitting blink micro, think of the AI videos we saw of perfect micro, think of that happening in a tournament game.
Wait, are you agreeing with me or not? I'm saying that TBLS would easily set themselves above the rest with godly macro and control.
Also Bisu #3 Protoss, why do you keep talking about him? 
|
On October 29 2011 16:33 HellionDrop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 14:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:
Since many people are saying BW is "better" because it is "harder" to play, I suggest Blizzard patch BW so that each control group can hold max 1 unit instead of 12, remove rally points from all production buildings, and remove the ability to automatically attack ("a" attack) so they have to manually right click on every unit to attack.
This would definitely increase the "skill ceiling" for BW, thus making BW a better game.
User was temp banned for this post. not to be an ass, but i think this guy has a pretty valid point and got temp banned. he's just using an extreme example to counter BW player arguments about making the game harder.
Agreed i don't understand how he was temp banned for this. Its point is that just cus a game is harder, it does not necessarily mean it is a better game. Just cus the skill ceiling is higher does not necessarily mean that it is more fun to watch than a game with a lesser skill ceiling. In this example, either way you will have to attack and micro units; it is a matter of how much time you think these players should be spending into being able to control their units effectively rather than spend it on things I think are more important such as strategy. Obviously, I think most people will not enjoy seeing progamers have to deal with unit groups of 1 unit each since battles will be executed more poorly. 12 units per control group, though still being significantly smaller than what is allowed in SC2, may be (and many think this), allow for a better viewing experience (more "small" fights and "small" movements within armies vs deathball vs deathball in SC2).
On October 29 2011 16:38 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:31 Cyrox wrote:
It was a product out of luck. The first and ever perfect RTS. The goal was to make a good game and to make money. I guarantee you there were more passion involved then.
SC2 was the product of a carefully planned formula to make as much money as possible on the success of BW and the RTS eSports hype it created for as little investing and effort as possible.
The truth is out there. That newschool players think SC2 is "great" and "complex" is both amusing and sad at the same time.
I know alot of players that couldnt play BW for shit that love SC2. You might think it's a good thing and that it made the community bigger. "Better" graphics had the same impact. A better community of more ignorant players only gives Activision more money.
What you had to invest in yourself to become good at BW isn't close to SC2. Dude...just stop. Seriously. It's not funny any more. It's harder to hit A on iCCup then to get to Grandmaster. It's harder to be at the level at which you can take games of progamers. BW is harder, we get it, but SC2 is still complex. Is it simpler in comparison to BW? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that it has a high level of complexity. StarCraft 2 was in production for a very long time, and cost 100 million dollars or something. If they were half-assing to make a sub-par product to ride BW's success, then they would have, and they didn't. Stop the spite. SC2 isn't BW, BW is better, whatever. The fact that SC2 is successful isn't a result of riding BW's success, it's not because Activision is tricking the 'ignorant' playerbase into buying a subpar product, it's successful because it's a great game and people love it. And there are millions of people who love it.
I hope you do realize (@Cyrox) that these are two different games and that skill is relative? It's like comparing tag and football. Which one is harder? Football, duh. But you still might think tag is more fun.
|
On October 29 2011 16:47 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:18 Cyrox wrote:
Consider that all the greats have pretty much unparallelled multitasking. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu.
Then consider the macro in SC2 is like WC3, lol.
How will they be able to differentiate themselves ? The game exists not out of love for eSports and RTS but only to make money for activision. I'd like to point out that July, the original Sauron Zerg with obviously tremendous macro, has pretty average macro in SC2. His creep spread is actually one of the worst among professional Zerg. I'm not sure if you watch much competitive SC2, but even the top top players, the best in the world right now, they frequently supply block themselves, float 2k+ resources, even queue up a lot of units. Nobody's macro is even close to optimal. TBLS will have no problem differentiating themselves. It really saddens me to see such animosity from BW diehards towards SC2. You don't have to love it, but give it a fair chance. They're both beautiful games. If you didn't approach it with the idea in your head "I hate Activision, I hate SC2, this is a scrub game, MBS and automine are blasphemy", you would appreciate the game, I am sure of it.
July the original Sauron zerg at the point of 2008 still had pretty beastly macro , but after that he fell down in mechanics just like Boxer and Nada . July's macro in SC2 is still pretty damn good . He floats minerals , because he normally makes enormous units switches and most of the time his larva injects are spot on . He fucks up larva injects when he is being pressured , but there is a risk when you pressure July that he will right out kill you .
I agree about everything else you have said .
|
On October 29 2011 16:53 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 16:33 HellionDrop wrote:On October 29 2011 14:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:
Since many people are saying BW is "better" because it is "harder" to play, I suggest Blizzard patch BW so that each control group can hold max 1 unit instead of 12, remove rally points from all production buildings, and remove the ability to automatically attack ("a" attack) so they have to manually right click on every unit to attack.
This would definitely increase the "skill ceiling" for BW, thus making BW a better game.
User was temp banned for this post. not to be an ass, but i think this guy has a pretty valid point and got temp banned. he's just using an extreme example to counter BW player arguments about making the game harder. No, thats an absolutely retarded point. Same as saying Since many people are saying SC2 is "better" because you dont have to struggle with the interface to play, I suggest Blizzard patch sc2 so that macro could be done with toggles, and low health units would automatically retreat during a fight, the spells automatically cast themselves on the optimal targets, and all the macro mechanics occurred automatically. Exaggeration/Hyperbole is never a good point.
Some of those changes would be decision making engines which would remove decisions which have better-worse outcomes from the game. That is different than an interface allowing a player to make the same, simple always correct decisions more easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
