EPTHeart Of The Swarm: The Pro's Opinions - Page 25
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On December 06 2011 07:58 infinity2k9 wrote: Seriously i think the people who disagree with ClouD must not be thinking this through in detail.. i don't consider myself too great of an RTS player as i don't play very often, but good enough to analysis how such large changes to the game will affect things. The most obvious thing that stood out to me is that some, maybe the majority, of the new additions are going to be things which are either vital or useless, what's the middle ground for these shit ideas?. Infact all 3 of the new Protoss units are like this; Not to mention none of them are even relevant in PvP? Despite this being prehaps the worst matchup there is zero additions that will change it. I should know better since nobody probably reads other peoples opinions in detail but here's what i think of the units, focusing on the concepts and ignoring the fact stats can change; Replicant: when this this ever going to be actually useful in a game? It's always going to have to cost more than the units it can copy; no single zerg unit will ever be worth it. The only feasible unit i can see is the tank rather than spellcasters, because why would you want to copy a single spellcaster or spend the time to build multiple replicants. And for the tank, either cloning tanks and turtling is a viable strategy, or it's not. There's NOTHING interesting about this unit, no situation will arise where it would suddenly be a good idea over a combat unit. Not to mention the idea of a P unit transforming into something anywhere on the map is fucking stupid and doesn't match the lore or the expected internal rules of the game. Oracle: first, preordain is completely useless and would never be worth the energy cost compared to the other two abilities. Entomb i bet came from simply thinking of a way to harass without killing workers. I don't even care if this is viable because it's simply not interesting or fun to do or spectate. Phase shift sounds like it's most likely to be broken and nerfed until it's not even worth getting the unit. Targeting minerals and buildings is a really boring idea in the first place, and the oracle is either going to be too expensive and not built at all or too cheap and they will be flying around in groups constantly freezing minerals/buildings, and most likely broken in PvZ. Tempest: this is the one i hate the most cause it seems like they just added the carrier for nothing and couldn't wait to put this back in. No micro, nothing interesting in this unit at all, no skill required. Either it counters zerg air effectively, or it doesn't and is changed until it does counter it or they give up. Even the removed shuriken idea would be more interesting to counter muta's with. This and the replicant deserve 0/10 for originality. The T/Z units have their own problems (especially shredder/swarm host which frankly suck). But these are just the worst. There's NO middle ground between units which have overly-micro heavy abilities which you'll constantly do and units which require no micro or skill at all. How about any units which require skill which doesn't involve an unimaginative ability attached to it, and are not being forced into a single blatantly obvious role with no other use. Blizzard seem to have this idea of main composition then everything else is harass/support; probably so it's easy to balance the main compositions with each other with simplistic units like roach/marauder/stalker then roughly balance the rest separately. I think we will have to wait and see how some of these HoTS units work out before we judge them (shredder seems a little micro unfriendly but I'll hold off judgement). However, I can honestly say that the unit design for the replicator is so simplistic and bland, I despise the idea of it without even having to try it. So many more interesting things that could be done with the protoss race and we get a "copy any unit" unit. Blizzard please scrap the replicator and give us something fun and exciting! Edit Mods please delete my other posts i hit quote instead of edit!! | ||
|
Aruno
New Zealand748 Posts
| ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
| ||
|
fouge642
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
gayfius173
48 Posts
To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following. 1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact. 2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2. 3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league. The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
Lol what? Skepticism isn't negativity. This is the same bs people complained about when SC2 was being shown pre-beta. Watch out, everybody is going to like HoTS. And then when LoTV is getting revealed the same comments will be said. | ||
|
Jimbo77
139 Posts
On December 06 2011 13:44 gayfius173 wrote: The amount of fan boys drooling over sc2 and unwilling to see its flaws is ridiculous. But I guess its to be expected. The major issue around sc2 is the fact that dustin browder was some moron from the shit game serious Command and conquer (also known as command of trash) and is trying to merge his shit game with SC. To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following. 1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact. 2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2. 3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league. The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. Well said pal. +1 Yes, multiple building select is a good step forward, but crap such as larva injecting, smartcasting, etc really don't make this game any better. | ||
|
Heaton31
United States323 Posts
On December 06 2011 13:44 gayfius173 wrote: The amount of fan boys drooling over sc2 and unwilling to see its flaws is ridiculous. But I guess its to be expected. The major issue around sc2 is the fact that dustin browder was some moron from the shit game serious Command and conquer (also known as command of trash) and is trying to merge his shit game with SC. To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following. 1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact. 2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2. 3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league. The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. Was SC1 the perfect game it was after a year? No? Oh yeah. While much of what you say is true, the game is 2 expansions away from even being complete. When SC1 came out there wasn't an established reddit or TL that contained the amount of negativity toward everything to take a new game and stick up their nose at it. SC2 definitely has flaws but the amount of people actually being patient and allowing the game to settle to a spot where people are satisfied is non-existent. It just seems like an overwhelming amount of people are expecting it to be silly or broken to even give it a chance. There's a terrible thing that happens that people develop an opinion and never, ever let it go in fear of actually having to admit that they changed their mind about something that seems like a weakness on the internet. | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On December 06 2011 13:44 gayfius173 wrote: The amount of fan boys drooling over sc2 and unwilling to see its flaws is ridiculous. But I guess its to be expected. The major issue around sc2 is the fact that dustin browder was some moron from the shit game serious Command and conquer (also known as command of trash) and is trying to merge his shit game with SC. To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following. 1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact. 2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2. 3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league. The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. Each to their own. Games that are mechanically harder to master are of less interest to me than games were positioning and decision making are king. Just because soemthing is harder doesn't make it better. Playing games without using the keyboard doesn't make the game better to play or spectate (as witnessed by day 9 doing the no keyboard funday monday, which was entertaining but the games were boring as shit) Having to tell each and every worker to mine and only groups of max 12 or crappy pathing AI doesn't make the gamer better. Watching the decisions of the players played out on the battle field is where the excitment is. Like Puma's marauder flank on metalopolis vs Hero at dreamhack. Brilliant! That shit excites me. Huk's consistantly brilliant unit positioning making him win battles he has no right winning is what gives me "nerd chills". I would hate to see strategically or tactically brilliant players unable to compete because they just aren't "fast" enough. They still need to be quick, but honestly APM shouldn't be the bar by which you can judge a good real time strategy player. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On December 06 2011 13:44 gayfius173 wrote: The amount of fan boys drooling over sc2 and unwilling to see its flaws is ridiculous. But I guess its to be expected. The major issue around sc2 is the fact that dustin browder was some moron from the shit game serious Command and conquer (also known as command of trash) and is trying to merge his shit game with SC. To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following. 1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact. 2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2. 3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league. The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. Yes, lets derail another thread into bullshit about how a shit UI makes for a better game. Can we try to stick to the OP, because I'm pretty sure we've heard every argument on the SC2 vs BW issue already. Stop beating the horse, it's already dead. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:31 Kharnage wrote: Each to their own. Games that are mechanically harder to master are of less interest to me than games were positioning and decision making are king. Just because soemthing is harder doesn't make it better. Playing games without using the keyboard doesn't make the game better to play or spectate (as witnessed by day 9 doing the no keyboard funday monday, which was entertaining but the games were boring as shit) Having to tell each and every worker to mine and only groups of max 12 or crappy pathing AI doesn't make the gamer better. Watching the decisions of the players played out on the battle field is where the excitment is. Like Puma's marauder flank on metalopolis vs Hero at dreamhack. Brilliant! That shit excites me. Huk's consistantly brilliant unit positioning making him win battles he has no right winning is what gives me "nerd chills". I would hate to see strategically or tactically brilliant players unable to compete because they just aren't "fast" enough. They still need to be quick, but honestly APM shouldn't be the bar by which you can judge a good real time strategy player. might as well take out the REAL TIME out of the strategy you know ? | ||
|
gayfius173
48 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:31 Kharnage wrote: Each to their own. Games that are mechanically harder to master are of less interest to me than games were positioning and decision making are king. Just because soemthing is harder doesn't make it better. Playing games without using the keyboard doesn't make the game better to play or spectate (as witnessed by day 9 doing the no keyboard funday monday, which was entertaining but the games were boring as shit) Having to tell each and every worker to mine and only groups of max 12 or crappy pathing AI doesn't make the gamer better. Watching the decisions of the players played out on the battle field is where the excitment is. Like Puma's marauder flank on metalopolis vs Hero at dreamhack. Brilliant! That shit excites me. Huk's consistantly brilliant unit positioning making him win battles he has no right winning is what gives me "nerd chills". I would hate to see strategically or tactically brilliant players unable to compete because they just aren't "fast" enough. They still need to be quick, but honestly APM shouldn't be the bar by which you can judge a good real time strategy player. APM wasn't the bar which defined BW, as was posted earlier in this thread. There were constant games where a player with less APM won because of smarter decision making. Your post is entirely off base by saying that sc2's 'decision making' is better than BW's BW had EVERYTHING you just said you liked and it had it on a far higher level than sc2 does. What is 'good decision making' against a 200/200 A move death ball? Or where is the good decision making with smart casting making the game so dumbed down that a 10 year old could do it properly? If you think BW didn't have tactics and unit positions, then you should go spend the next 24 hours watching brood war pro games. What you'll come to find is BW's unit positioning and decision making effected the outcome of the game far far more than sc2's ever will, because it was actually hard to control your units, position them properly and keep up with the flow of battle, and there wasn't any 200/200 deathball A move bullshit, or smartcasting to carry inferior player along the way. ---- To answer the posts of 'give the game time', you guys are missing the point. First of all let me say that I enjoy watching sc2. I like the game. I play the game. I bought the game and I'll buy the expansions. However, it is a different game than BW. And there-in lies the problem. Sure, BW was not BALANCED for the first year or however long. That is not an argument here (and anyone saying it was balanced right away is also offbase and doesn't know much about BW's history). Obviously, with any game like BW or sc2, balance will take time. The biggest complaint is how the game PLAYS. sc2 very well might reach a balanced point where its competitive. But it will NEVER have the skillcap that BW had because the AI and design is dumbed down and does not allow for it. There is NOTHING skillful about A moving a 200/200 unit group. There is nothing skillful about smart casting. | ||
|
Brutaxilos
United States2622 Posts
| ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On December 06 2011 14:45 gayfius173 wrote: APM wasn't the bar which defined BW, as was posted earlier in this thread. There were constant games where a player with less APM won because of smarter decision making. Your post is entirely off base by saying that sc2's 'decision making' is better than BW's BW had EVERYTHING you just said you liked and it had it on a far higher level than sc2 does. What is 'good decision making' against a 200/200 A move death ball? Or where is the good decision making with smart casting making the game so dumbed down that a 10 year old could do it properly? If you think BW didn't have tactics and unit positions, then you should go spend the next 24 hours watching brood war pro games. What you'll come to find is BW's unit positioning and decision making effected the outcome of the game far far more than sc2's ever will, because it was actually hard to control your units, position them properly and keep up with the flow of battle, and there wasn't any 200/200 deathball A move bullshit, or smartcasting to carry inferior player along the way. ---- To answer the posts of 'give the game time', you guys are missing the point. First of all let me say that I enjoy watching sc2. I like the game. I play the game. I bought the game and I'll buy the expansions. However, it is a different game than BW. And there-in lies the problem. Sure, BW was not BALANCED for the first year or however long. That is not an argument here (and anyone saying it was balanced right away is also offbase and doesn't know much about BW's history). Obviously, with any game like BW or sc2, balance will take time. The biggest complaint is how the game PLAYS. sc2 very well might reach a balanced point where its competitive. But it will NEVER have the skillcap that BW had because the AI and design is dumbed down and does not allow for it. There is NOTHING skillful about A moving a 200/200 unit group. There is nothing skillful about smart casting. This post is 100% accurate...on a side note can't wait for T8 vs ACE  | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
| ||
|
hasuterrans
United States614 Posts
It's only a matter of time before you get called a 'bw elitist' since a lot newer sc2 players who didn't play bw have a tendency to get overly defensive about sc2 when people criticize it's game design. Rather than immediately flame the poster recognize that we just want sc2 to be better than scbw. The vast majority of people who played scbw do not want to go back to a game without MBS and auto-mine. The point that we're trying to make is that Blizzard had a tremendous opportunity they squandered. Rather than take a significantly improved UI and add highly microable units to keep a high skill ceiling they did the exact opposite. This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about what makes Starcraft what it is. Instead of having a better game we have a game with better UI and graphics, but worse gameplay in many regards. Who remembers Lalush's thread from the beta? <--- everyone should read this | ||
|
Dakota_Fanning
Hungary2335 Posts
| ||
| ||
