|
On December 06 2011 15:55 hasuterrans wrote:gayfius173 you're owning this thread pretty hard, thanks for taking the time to post. 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. For example infestors were getting killed b/c they were running ahead of zerg armies. Rather than keep the speed high (theoretically a benefit for skilled players) they lowered it so zerg users wouldn't keep getting their infestors killed b/c they lacked proper unit control. There are other examples, moving shot and the phoenix, the forthcoming shredder instead of spider mines (which required apm to constantly put down all game since they were single use only) and the list goes on. Who remembers Lalush's thread from the beta? <--- everyone should read this
Actually, Blizzard didn't lower infestor speed because they were getting ahead of the army and therefor getting killed. They lowered it because they felt that infestors got away too easily. Even off creep since it was slightly faster than units with normal speed. Situation report Patch 1.3.3
|
I really think everyone should read Lalush's thread from the beta. I never played BW but I agree with alot of the points he made. I agree its a new game and its way different and change is good, but plz plz DONT lower the skill ceiling. I guess I've been here before being a former cs player. ( 1.6-source situation)
|
On December 06 2011 16:28 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 15:55 hasuterrans wrote:gayfius173 you're owning this thread pretty hard, thanks for taking the time to post. 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. For example infestors were getting killed b/c they were running ahead of zerg armies. Rather than keep the speed high (theoretically a benefit for skilled players) they lowered it so zerg users wouldn't keep getting their infestors killed b/c they lacked proper unit control. There are other examples, moving shot and the phoenix, the forthcoming shredder instead of spider mines (which required apm to constantly put down all game since they were single use only) and the list goes on. Who remembers Lalush's thread from the beta? <--- everyone should read this Actually, Blizzard didn't lower infestor speed because they were getting ahead of the army and therefor getting killed. They lowered it because they felt that infestors got away too easily. Even off creep since it was slightly faster than units with normal speed. Situation report Patch 1.3.3
Thanks for the correction.
|
On December 06 2011 16:34 trickery wrote:
I really think everyone should read Lalush's thread from the beta. I never played BW but I agree with alot of the points he made. I agree its a new game and its way different and change is good, but plz plz DONT lower the skill ceiling. I guess I've been here before being a former cs player. ( 1.6-source situation)
Yeah, I'd bump it but it was locked by a mod.
|
On December 06 2011 16:34 trickery wrote:
I really think everyone should read Lalush's thread from the beta. I never played BW but I agree with alot of the points he made. I agree its a new game and its way different and change is good, but plz plz DONT lower the skill ceiling. I guess I've been here before being a former cs player. ( 1.6-source situation)
I get the idea behind that thought, but so far it's simply just not a problem at all. It might be that a theoretical skill sealing is lower in sc2 compared to bw, but at the same time so far even the best of the best like MVP, nestea, huk or who ever is your favorite is nowhere near a perfect control yet, there is still sooooo much to do, and even the "simple" things gets really tough if we talk about doing 4 or 5 things at once instead of 2. My point is so far all the "lower" skill sealing has done is made it easier or new people to get started and get "good", the problem the pros has is probably that all of a sudden the skills that made them better than everyone else in bw, pure speed I guess, is just not enough anymore, decision making is way more important in sc2. So I think it's a bit silly when people compaain about lower skill sealing as so far no one has mastered sc2 fully and it has made Starcraft way more competitive.
That's my thought anyway 
|
On December 06 2011 16:45 doomed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 16:34 trickery wrote:
I really think everyone should read Lalush's thread from the beta. I never played BW but I agree with alot of the points he made. I agree its a new game and its way different and change is good, but plz plz DONT lower the skill ceiling. I guess I've been here before being a former cs player. ( 1.6-source situation) I get the idea behind that thought, but so far it's simply just not a problem at all. It might be that a theoretical skill sealing is lower in sc2 compared to bw, but at the same time so far even the best of the best like MVP, nestea, huk or who ever is your favorite is nowhere near a perfect control yet, there is still sooooo much to do, and even the "simple" things gets really tough if we talk about doing 4 or 5 things at once instead of 2. My point is so far all the "lower" skill sealing has done is made it easier or new people to get started and get "good", the problem the pros has is probably that all of a sudden the skills that made them better than everyone else in bw, pure speed I guess, is just not enough anymore, decision making is way more important in sc2. So I think it's a bit silly when people compaain about lower skill sealing as so far no one has mastered sc2 fully and it has made Starcraft way more competitive. That's my thought anyway
It's really ignorant to say there advantage was pure speed and the people who say sc2 has more decision making im guessing have just never played it before you respond please just go watch someone like savior play :D
|
On December 06 2011 17:12 Bd.Snake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 16:45 doomed wrote:On December 06 2011 16:34 trickery wrote:
I really think everyone should read Lalush's thread from the beta. I never played BW but I agree with alot of the points he made. I agree its a new game and its way different and change is good, but plz plz DONT lower the skill ceiling. I guess I've been here before being a former cs player. ( 1.6-source situation) I get the idea behind that thought, but so far it's simply just not a problem at all. It might be that a theoretical skill sealing is lower in sc2 compared to bw, but at the same time so far even the best of the best like MVP, nestea, huk or who ever is your favorite is nowhere near a perfect control yet, there is still sooooo much to do, and even the "simple" things gets really tough if we talk about doing 4 or 5 things at once instead of 2. My point is so far all the "lower" skill sealing has done is made it easier or new people to get started and get "good", the problem the pros has is probably that all of a sudden the skills that made them better than everyone else in bw, pure speed I guess, is just not enough anymore, decision making is way more important in sc2. So I think it's a bit silly when people compaain about lower skill sealing as so far no one has mastered sc2 fully and it has made Starcraft way more competitive. That's my thought anyway It's really ignorant to say there advantage was pure speed and the people who say sc2 has more decision making im guessing have just never played it before you respond please just go watch someone like savior play :D
1 person will not make a difference in this, Im talking in a general sense. speed was very important in bw to just... do anything, and you needed like 200-300 apm to just be decent to get it all done, that can now be done with 80 (some claim) but what Im trying to say is, that I think that is bullshit, because sure the basic econ management can now be done with 80 instead of 200, but there is still stuff you potentially could do with the last 200 apm if you have them, that will make you better than "the rest" even in SC2. So before we see someone like I guess Flash in skill, when it comes to mastering sc2, I think it's pointless to debate whether the skill sealing is lower.
of course I have played it, and it's not ignorant at all? prove me wrong? you see plenty of players ripping off heads purely due to good game understand and perfect decisions at the right times, but if you compare the apm they have half of many others.
|
On December 06 2011 17:40 doomed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 17:12 Bd.Snake wrote:On December 06 2011 16:45 doomed wrote:On December 06 2011 16:34 trickery wrote:
I really think everyone should read Lalush's thread from the beta. I never played BW but I agree with alot of the points he made. I agree its a new game and its way different and change is good, but plz plz DONT lower the skill ceiling. I guess I've been here before being a former cs player. ( 1.6-source situation) I get the idea behind that thought, but so far it's simply just not a problem at all. It might be that a theoretical skill sealing is lower in sc2 compared to bw, but at the same time so far even the best of the best like MVP, nestea, huk or who ever is your favorite is nowhere near a perfect control yet, there is still sooooo much to do, and even the "simple" things gets really tough if we talk about doing 4 or 5 things at once instead of 2. My point is so far all the "lower" skill sealing has done is made it easier or new people to get started and get "good", the problem the pros has is probably that all of a sudden the skills that made them better than everyone else in bw, pure speed I guess, is just not enough anymore, decision making is way more important in sc2. So I think it's a bit silly when people compaain about lower skill sealing as so far no one has mastered sc2 fully and it has made Starcraft way more competitive. That's my thought anyway It's really ignorant to say there advantage was pure speed and the people who say sc2 has more decision making im guessing have just never played it before you respond please just go watch someone like savior play :D 1 person will not make a difference in this, Im talking in a general sense. speed was very important in bw to just... do anything, and you needed like 200-300 apm to just be decent to get it all done, that can now be done with 80 (some claim) but what Im trying to say is, that I think that is bullshit, because sure the basic econ management can now be done with 80 instead of 200, but there is still stuff you potentially could do with the last 200 apm if you have them, that will make you better than "the rest" even in SC2. So before we see someone like I guess Flash in skill, when it comes to mastering sc2, I think it's pointless to debate whether the skill sealing is lower. of course I have played it, and it's not ignorant at all? prove me wrong? you see plenty of players ripping off heads purely due to good game understand and perfect decisions at the right times, but if you compare the apm they have half of many others.
What are you talking about i just said bw has more decision making then sc2 then you go off on a rant about apm
-_- you said sc2 has more decision making i said it didn't then you talk about apm?
|
On December 06 2011 15:55 hasuterrans wrote:gayfius173 you're owning this thread pretty hard, thanks for taking the time to post. 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. For example infestors were getting killed b/c they were running ahead of zerg armies. Rather than keep the speed high (theoretically a benefit for skilled players) they lowered it so zerg users wouldn't keep getting their infestors killed b/c they lacked proper unit control. There are other examples, moving shot and the phoenix, the forthcoming shredder instead of spider mines (which required apm to constantly put down all game since they were single use only) and the list goes on. Who remembers Lalush's thread from the beta? <--- everyone should read this
This. There was smart casting and a better UI + AI in WC3 as well, still it is very obvious that the skill gap between good players and Pros was enormous.
It is hard to make a game as good as BW right from the get-go. nobody blames Blizzard for not releasing a perfect BW substitute. But even WC3, which SC players used to frown at, has a way higher skill ceiling than SC2 currently has.
The reason why WC3 battles were awesome, was the microbility of units. Hell, there was so much going on, such to pay attention to. Look at how good Grubby or Moon were at this game and how far they were above anyone else.
The issue why SC2 does not seem to give Pros an edge over semi-pros is not only that the game has been dumbed down.
This is not a problem at all imho, since WC3 was dumbed down in a sense too. But Blizzard just failed to design units and mechanics that reward superior unit control or micro-abilities. Also the dps to health ratio in SC2 is ridiculously high, which means that shit just dies too fast to allow for any micro.
And how is positioning more important when there is no high ground advantage in SC2 at all (except for vision)?
I like SC2 really. And through SC2 I started watching BW and I can perfectly understand why people have lost faith in Blizzard.
As it has been said before: Nobody complains that SC2 is not as good as BW now. They complain that SC2 does not even seem to have the potential to become as awesome and competitive.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2011 15:55 hasuterrans wrote:gayfius173 you're owning this thread pretty hard, thanks for taking the time to post. 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. For example infestors were getting killed b/c they were running ahead of zerg armies. Rather than keep the speed high (theoretically a benefit for skilled players) they lowered it so zerg users wouldn't keep getting their infestors killed b/c they lacked proper unit control. There are other examples, moving shot and the phoenix, the forthcoming shredder instead of spider mines (which required apm to constantly put down all game since they were single use only) and the list goes on. Who remembers Lalush's thread from the beta? <--- everyone should read this
Reading what LaLush wrote seriously showed me lots of what I forgot about when I was playing brood war seriously well written and should be read by everyone.
|
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way.
|
On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way.
Corruptor is by far the worse unit design in the game as it's simple purpose is to handle collosi and be something that broodlords morph from. I think too many units have abilities which makes it harder to watch.
I think force field and fungal deserve to be in that list of poor design as they force non-interactive battles. I think the viper's blinding ability is a step in the right direction.
|
On December 06 2011 18:30 Jarvs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way. Corruptor is by far the worse unit design in the game as it's simple purpose is to handle collosi and be something that broodlords morph from. I think too many units have abilities which makes it harder to watch. I think force field and fungal deserve to be in that list of poor design as they force non-interactive battles. I think the viper's blinding ability is a step in the right direction.
Yet in HOTS, they are planning to give corrupters the pillage.. i mean siphon ability ... what is Blizzard thinking??
|
On December 06 2011 18:53 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 18:30 Jarvs wrote:On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way. Corruptor is by far the worse unit design in the game as it's simple purpose is to handle collosi and be something that broodlords morph from. I think too many units have abilities which makes it harder to watch. I think force field and fungal deserve to be in that list of poor design as they force non-interactive battles. I think the viper's blinding ability is a step in the right direction. Yet in HOTS, they are planning to give corrupters the pillage.. i mean siphon ability ... what is Blizzard thinking??
That it would be a cool mechanic if you send Corrupters on a suicide mission into enemy bases to steal ressources after you killed their colossi.
|
On December 06 2011 18:59 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 18:53 YyapSsap wrote:On December 06 2011 18:30 Jarvs wrote:On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way. Corruptor is by far the worse unit design in the game as it's simple purpose is to handle collosi and be something that broodlords morph from. I think too many units have abilities which makes it harder to watch. I think force field and fungal deserve to be in that list of poor design as they force non-interactive battles. I think the viper's blinding ability is a step in the right direction. Yet in HOTS, they are planning to give corrupters the pillage.. i mean siphon ability ... what is Blizzard thinking?? That it would be a cool mechanic if you send Corrupters on a suicide mission into enemy bases to steal ressources after you killed their colossi.
you won't need corrupters to kill collosus when you have vipers pulling them into lings/roaches
|
So the viper is really a well disguised flying pudge... *troll face*
But going back to the previous topic, there are so many things blizzard can try to fix these design problems that lead to the game being so volatile or in a more extreme sense being more "coin flipping" in nature. Just from the top of my head:
-Increase unit collosion size, or something that stops the clumping and armies becoming a "ball" of death.
-Make spellcasting units late game tech where they dont start off with any spells (well no offensive spells) and make them a strategic risk in investment vs having more troops late game. Stops people from MASSING or rushing for spellcasters (infestors come to mind).
-Bring back microability for air units e.g moving shot
-Remove the two other "dragoons" from other races, give zerg hydras as T1 + T needs a middle of the road GtA unit.
-Tone down the AtG units which sometimes leads to build order loss. How many times have the voidray been nerfed because of this? Banshees for instance 2 shot workers, yet they also give it cloak?? Even if the opponent scouts it late, it shouldn't be an outright loss by a single unit or cause such a huge damage.
-Make warpgates late game tech and buff protoss gateway units.
-Make Mech a viable build against P so carriers have a role.
-Kill off the colossi so carriers can have a role (and NOT force vikings)
-Maybe introduce chrono, larvae inject and mule a little later in the game. All these mechanics makes cheesing/all-ining that much easier.
-Introduce zone controlling units and introduce defenders advantage in the form of superior positioning!
-Need setup based plays for all races.
I could keep going, but further I think about the game, its mechanics, relationship between units and what not, alot of it feels "forced" by Blizzard and something along the lines of "must be new compared to BW" vibe can be felt. I just dont understand why they left what made BW so interesting, intriguing and epic by coming up with all these new gimmicks. You dont fix what aint broken..
Also theres a trend that I see from Dustin Bowder and his team. They seem to be killing iconic units from starcraft. Hydras are a shell of their former selves due to the zerg dragoon oh i mean the roach. Hydra speed at T3 in HOTS? are you kidding me?? Carriers might get axed because of the colossus (due to their overlapping roles and forcing unit counters that also counter the carrier), a unit supposedly the best Blizzard could come up with for the reaver replacement. Tanks now have so many counters I have lost count.
|
On December 06 2011 19:57 YyapSsap wrote:
So the viper is really a well disguised flying pudge... *troll face*
But going back to the previous topic, there are so many things blizzard can try to fix these design problems that lead to the game being so volatile or in a more extreme sense being more "coin flipping" in nature. Just from the top of my head:
-Increase unit collosion size, or something that stops the clumping and armies becoming a "ball" of death.
-Make spellcasting units late game tech where they dont start off with any spells (well no offensive spells) and make them a strategic risk in investment vs having more troops late game. Stops people from MASSING or rushing for spellcasters (infestors come to mind).
-Bring back microability for air units e.g moving shot
-Remove the two other "dragoons" from other races, give zerg hydras as T1 + T needs a middle of the road GtA unit.
-Tone down the AtG units which sometimes leads to build order loss. How many times have the voidray been nerfed because of this? Banshees for instance 2 shot workers, yet they also give it cloak?? Even if the opponent scouts it late, it shouldn't be an outright loss by a single unit or cause such a huge damage.
-Make warpgates late game tech and buff protoss gateway units.
-Make Mech a viable build against P so carriers have a role.
-Kill off the colossi so carriers can have a role (and NOT force vikings)
-Maybe introduce chrono, larvae inject and mule a little later in the game. All these mechanics makes cheesing/all-ining that much easier.
-Introduce zone controlling units and introduce defenders advantage in the form of superior positioning!
-Need setup based plays for all races.
I could keep going, but further I think about the game, its mechanics, relationship between units and what not, alot of it feels "forced" by Blizzard and something along the lines of "must be new compared to BW" vibe can be felt. I just dont understand why they left what made BW so interesting, intriguing and epic by coming up with all these new gimmicks. You dont fix what aint broken..
Also theres a trend that I see from Dustin Bowder and his team. They seem to be killing iconic units from starcraft. Hydras are a shell of their former selves due to the zerg dragoon oh i mean the roach. Hydra speed at T3 in HOTS? are you kidding me?? Carriers might get axed because of the colossus (due to their overlapping roles and forcing unit counters that also counter the carrier), a unit supposedly the best Blizzard could come up with for the reaver replacement. Tanks now have so many counters I have lost count.
I agree on majority of those points. I think the fact that coll can stand in the middle of your own units is a design flaw. Reavers were gamebreaking but required a frontline to defend and punished the protoss for going power over maneuverability. Don't so much agree with making carriers the replacement, but I see your point.
Warpgates need to be a choice, not an necessity. Same goes for ALL upgrades. How often do you see infestor play without pathogen glands? Concussive shells? Chitinous plating? If an upgrade is essential then it should already be included and the unit balanced accordingly.
|
On December 06 2011 18:30 Jarvs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way. Corruptor is by far the worse unit design in the game as it's simple purpose is to handle collosi and be something that broodlords morph from..
For me the best example of this design is the Tempest as it's currently previewed.
It is a black and white one purpose rock-paper-scissors unit. It is designed for one unit in one match-up. Sure you can argue that if terran start going mass viking against colossi you can throw in a tempest.
Overall the design seems to be to me, "Well we need to do something to get to LOTV, and we could fix ________, but...we need to add/sub some units so...instead of fixing _____ we're going to remove it and replace it with ______ and then if it's terrible we can redesign it or remove THAT one for the final expansion."
Frustrated. I don't think it's like, terrible all around o no's, but...I'm eager to just get all the expos and shit out of the way so that two years AFTER the last one hits we can have a stable rts game.
|
hmm from what i saw of the tempest preview it will do well against bio (medivac destroyer deluxe+ forces anti air). They will actually do bad against mass vikings if there would be an air battle. Because stacked up vikings overkill and having them splitted up does more damage, unless you chase something. (kinda like bcs in bw, if you focus fired the other bcs you would lose pretty hard against the other terran splitting the bc fire onto your bcs).
Versus zerg, toss air had just one problem, the enemy could stack up fairly easy even against storms and do lots of damage, with hit and run, not only mass mutas is a problem here. Especially since voidrays life from their charge, which is almost impossible to achieve against stacked up units (you can only focus fire, resulting in to fast killing to get charge). The tempest is basically there to split the units so the other air units of toss work better against stacked up units.
While the carrier does pretty good against stacked units, he doesn't really help unstacking. + a giant issue with the catapult upgrade, making it pretty easy to one shot interceptors with terran and zerg, while its needed for kiting with the carrier.
Also what is wrong with units contering only one unit. Valkyrie, corsair only purpose was to beat mutas. well the corsair got an extra spell added. But there you have a good example of a unit being awesome even if its only there to beat one unit.
Well i liked blizzards first idea about sc2 multiplayer which got scrapped, so its easy to make me happy it seems even without cookies. Or i try to not only see the negative points of something. But be sure that LotV will do the same as broodwar and the same as HotS and the same as frozen throne. Add units that fill in holes for the race. (i hope they will fail with their new approach of removing units, just nerf them to the ground and let them ingame, even a noob will find out they are bad, while higher up players might find uses for them in some years, like for the wraith and even the scout)
|
On December 06 2011 14:45 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 14:31 Kharnage wrote: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. 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.
Ah, so you're openly admitting your whole argument is based solely on the fact that 'SC2 is not BW, therefore BW > SC2.' Well yes, you are about as right as you could possibly be about that fact, mister. But... You seem to be omitting your quantified evidence as to how the simple fact of one game not being another game instantly makes the game garbage.
And I seriously question if you even keep up to date on sc2 man. 200/200 deathballs take absolutely no skill... No shit sherlock, but when was the last time anybody got fucking anywhere in a professional tournament using those kind of tactics (that didn't play protoss)? Because I've been watching every major tournament since the beginning of summer and I still haven't seen terrible tactics like that used since the end of season 1.
You are casting gross hyperboles to further your own argument. Stop saying everything is 'absolute shit' and start making rational, relevant arguments, because it has been known for a good amount of time now that herp derping up to a 200/200 deathball will only get you slaughtered while you're getting there. People's skills and knowledge of the game is evolving, and therefore the relative skill level of the players is too. I understand that making the argument 'the game is only a year old' does sound a bit stupid, but you have to consider it from the perspective of the amount of experience and practice people have. I don't understand how you can think that a game that has only been playable for about 2 years now could come anywhere near close to the depth and professional level that a game of 12 years could ever have. And this will be the case for a good couple of years. But that is not the fault of the game designers nor the game itself, but merely of time and experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
