I've gathered the opinions of players such as White-ra, iNcontrol, BlinG and others about the upcoming expansion Heart of the Swarm. You can have a look here:
Here is a preview: Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
Any feedback is welcome.
ps: apologies for my previous post with the lack of information in the OP, hope this is better.
I wonder why there aren't any new updates on HotS. Blizzcon is like 6 weeks ago now, so they have gone through an entire new set of iterations for the new units and such. I wish they would have updates every time they did some relevant change.
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
On December 03 2011 06:46 Grumbels wrote: I wonder why there aren't any new updates on HotS. Blizzcon is like 6 weeks ago now, so they have gone through an entire new set of iterations for the new units and such. I wish they would have updates every time they did some relevant change.
I think like cloud as well. Really hope they stabilize the game and stop making it more gimmicky. Especially in regards to protoss, like white-ra said.
No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Hmm a divide in the community could happen if the game isn't balanced enough and I would have to agree with some of the pros about there concerns as it will change the metagame entirely and will have to learn new strategies that work since the old ones won't always work.
Cloud probably wishing he stuck to protoss when switching from bw to sc2.
It probably sucks to see all these foreign Z/P having success but Terran stuck in the mud. Especially when you put in just as much time and hard work as those foreign Z/P counterparts.
On December 03 2011 06:46 Grumbels wrote: I wonder why there aren't any new updates on HotS. Blizzcon is like 6 weeks ago now, so they have gone through an entire new set of iterations for the new units and such. I wish they would have updates every time they did some relevant change.
pretty simply, blizzcon is the place where they show how far they are, other then that they don't show off every single change, they show things if they are almost finished, which is now done by doing beta testing. So there won't be alot of informations about it until the next blizzcon. You shouldn't be spoiled from the indie devs, that will tease out any change they make. Otherwise there would also be no reason to make a blizzcon at all.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
To be fair, I've heard similar comments from multiple tourny winners.
Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
sc2 is a pretty bad game in itself and I haven't respected Blizzard since TBC of WoW, so I have no doubt that HoTS will be awful too. First Blizzard game I won't purchase at launch and am doubtful if ever. We'll see.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
You really shouldn't put much stock into competitive wow. It was never meant/designed to be a competitive game, and it has never gotten close to the level of balance or skill level that SC2 has now.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
You really shouldn't put much stock into competitive wow. It was never meant/designed to be a competitive game, and it has never gotten close to the level of balance or skill level that SC2 has now.
I think you really missed the point. I wasn't saying WoW was the epitome of skill until Blizzard screwed up. I'm saying that a game was perfectly fine until Blizzard screwed it up and the same thing could happen to SC2. Please don't turn this into a WoW vs SC2 debate... -.-
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
You really shouldn't put much stock into competitive wow. It was never meant/designed to be a competitive game, and it has never gotten close to the level of balance or skill level that SC2 has now.
I think you really missed the point. I wasn't saying WoW was the epitome of skill until Blizzard screwed up. I'm saying that a game was perfectly fine until Blizzard screwed it up and the same thing could happen to SC2. Please don't turn this into a WoW vs SC2 debate... -.-
TBC was a good exp though :p
More to the point, the opinions run the gamut from excitement to bitterness and skew a bit negative. That is to be expected because people don't like change. The pro scene is constantly kicking people to the door and it is likely that HOTS will be the coup de gras for many of those guys who were interviewed. Self-preservation is a strong driving force!
I really like the Zerg/Terran changes and dislike the Protoss changes. As a whole I also think that Zerg and Toss needed another mineral dump (and didn't get one, but zerg got some other cool things), while terran needed some more gas options and ended up getting them. Maybe hydras and pheonix could become more mineral heavy, I'm not sure.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
On December 03 2011 08:35 Toppp wrote: Cloud is just a whiner, he was just whining about how Terran requires much more skill mechanics and dedication than the other races.
Cloud should have sticked with Protoss it seems. He would be together with the top foreigners P now.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Balance issues? Really? When we're at the end of the beta people can talk about balance issues, but I'm fairly certain Blizzard isn't going to release a game that isn't competitive.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Too be fair he was a pretty good bw player
He's damn good at sc2 as well, he just went afk for a while with MyM slowly dyeing. After joining aTn and having his broken arm heal, he's been doing well in online cups, but I guess he has given up (dunno how old these interviews are).
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
Then what changes would you like to see? Blizz needs to hear some actual feedback from the Pros, not just "super gamblish" comments. Is the damage simply too high? Would SC2 benefit from a more "Warcraft 3" type gameplay, but without the spells? Would all the units in general just benefit from an HP/shield buff, so fights last much longer and give everyone a chance to micro more?
I get the sense that you're saying spells like fungal growth, psi storm, and EMP are the cause of much of the downfall of this game, and it needs to move more towards the direction of just more military might vs spell casters. Perhaps the spell casters just in general need to be more de-emphasized, but I just don't know.
That two variables at odds with each other:
- too much spellcasting (requires micro to perform) - units are too A-move friendly (requires little to no micro to perform)
...which confounds the tightrope between how much micro should be the base minimum, to be allowed success at a high level. If these "bad players" are too successful with their strats, what would you say is the true cause? Is the game too noob friendly?
Anyways sorry that you don't enjoy the game. BW is still going strong and won't be going away anytime soon. I think if you dislike SC2, HOTS won't change your opinion.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
Then what changes would you like to see? Blizz needs to hear some actual feedback from the Pros, not just "super gamblish" comments. Is the damage simply too high? Would SC2 benefit from a more "Warcraft 3" type gameplay, but without the spells? Would all the units in general just benefit from an HP/shield buff, so fights last much longer and give everyone a chance to micro more?
I get the sense that you're saying spells like fungal growth, psi storm, and EMP are the cause of much of the downfall of this game, and it needs to move more towards the direction of just more military might vs spell casters. Perhaps the spell casters just in general need to be more de-emphasized, but I just don't know.
That two variables at odds with each other:
- too much spellcasting (requires micro to perform) - units are too A-move friendly (requires little to no micro to perform)
...which confounds the tightrope between how much micro should be the base minimum, to be allowed success at a high level. If these "bad players" are too successful with their strats, what would you say is the true cause? Is the game too noob friendly?
Anyways sorry that you don't enjoy the game. BW is still going strong and won't be going away anytime soon. I think if you dislike SC2, HOTS won't change your opinion.
I think what really ruined the game is the fact units clump way too much and the smart casting system. If units were more spread through the map aoe would be less effective and they would have to balance the game around the basic units (like scbw) rather than on the big spell casting hard counter imba ones. Also fights would last more and it would allow more room for comebacks and good unit placements, and not a-moving huge ass army balls. Hots is not gonna change this so my opinion on the game will still be negative I guess.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
Then what changes would you like to see? Blizz needs to hear some actual feedback from the Pros, not just "super gamblish" comments. Is the damage simply too high? Would SC2 benefit from a more "Warcraft 3" type gameplay, but without the spells? Would all the units in general just benefit from an HP/shield buff, so fights last much longer and give everyone a chance to micro more?
I get the sense that you're saying spells like fungal growth, psi storm, and EMP are the cause of much of the downfall of this game, and it needs to move more towards the direction of just more military might vs spell casters. Perhaps the spell casters just in general need to be more de-emphasized, but I just don't know.
That two variables at odds with each other:
- too much spellcasting (requires micro to perform) - units are too A-move friendly (requires little to no micro to perform)
...which confounds the tightrope between how much micro should be the base minimum, to be allowed success at a high level. If these "bad players" are too successful with their strats, what would you say is the true cause? Is the game too noob friendly?
Anyways sorry that you don't enjoy the game. BW is still going strong and won't be going away anytime soon. I think if you dislike SC2, HOTS won't change your opinion.
I think what really ruined the game is the fact units clump way too much and the smart casting system. If units were more spread through the map aoe would be less effective and they would have to balance the game around the basic units (like scbw) rather than on the big spell casting hard counter imba ones. Also fights would last more and it would allow more room for comebacks and good unit placements, and not a-moving huge ass army balls. Hots is not gonna change this so my opinion on the game will still be negative I guess.
I hear you. The new clump-up system that's in place. It also seems to make the armies look smaller than they are. Although I will say I don't mind the smart-cast system from Warcraft 3. It's pretty punishing to cast psi-storm from all your Templars when you wanted it to be from just one, but that is my opinion, and I am not a micro master.
What are your thoughts on the single cast abilities(snipe, feedback) or does it just fall under the umbrella of "smart casting" woes?
This seems to be the only sport or competition where the people complain this much about "losing because of luck".
Is it pure skill when a sudden wind draft moves your game-winning field goal to the left, and turns it into a game-losing miss? Chance is a part of any competition. How are you going to take all luck out of the field of play? With chess it's possible because the rules are simple, they are the same for both sides, and everything is geometric; also you can see the entire field of play and analyze it.
Don't know who said it but:
"The guy who loses lost because of bad luck. The champion makes his own luck."
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
HOTS appears to be moving away from the deathball style of play with units like the shredder, oracle, swarm host, nexus recall, etc. You should be optimistic, if anything.
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
The Tempest kind of sucks, I'll admit it, but the oracle is EXTREMELY OP atm and the replicant has so many crazy applications that it should probably become one of the best units in the game. Imagine siege tanks replacing colossi as the extremely bulky deathball protects them far better than a Terran army or building your opponent's worker and getting his entire tech tree. Also, recall for nexus is incredibly OP and the same goes for the arc shield.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
On December 03 2011 08:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: This seems to be the only sport or competition where the people complain this much about "losing because of luck".
Is it pure skill when a sudden wind draft moves your game-winning field goal to the left, and turns it into a game-losing miss? Chance is a part of any competition. How are you going to take all luck out of the field of play? With chess it's possible because the rules are simple, they are the same for both sides, and everything is geometric; also you can see the entire field of play and analyze it.
Don't know who said it but:
"The guy who loses lost because of bad luck. The champion makes his own luck."
It's easy to speak when you can just put random cool sentences in there without giving any logical reasoning on the subject.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
HOTS appears to be moving away from the deathball style of play with units like the shredder, oracle, swarm host, nexus recall, etc. You should be optimistic, if anything.
Not sure if he should. HotS is introducing new units that are extremely different from WoL, something that should not be lost considering how it could still be argued that we are not yet balanced enough in WoL, let alone something that is going to be so different that almost everything we did previously is going to just be thrown up in the air.
On December 03 2011 08:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: This seems to be the only sport or competition where the people complain this much about "losing because of luck".
Is it pure skill when a sudden wind draft moves your game-winning field goal to the left, and turns it into a game-losing miss? Chance is a part of any competition. How are you going to take all luck out of the field of play? With chess it's possible because the rules are simple, they are the same for both sides, and everything is geometric; also you can see the entire field of play and analyze it.
Don't know who said it but:
"The guy who loses lost because of bad luck. The champion makes his own luck."
Yeeaahh... no. A game like SC2 should have as little luck as possible. It is a competitive RTS, after all. The micro in BW was the kind of thing that I wish we had more of in BW, allowing good players to squash the bad players no matter how good their coinflip strategy or lucky move was that round. Also, how the heck does one go about "making his own luck"? By definition, luck cannot be made, only happened upon.
It's easy to speak when you can just put random cool sentences in there without giving any logical reasoning on the subject.
Lolwut? Exactly what did you want?
"Oh buddy! You're just absolutely right about everything! Yeah! All those bad players beating all those good players just cause of luck! Yep!"
I don't agree with you, dude. I think it's 1) whining, and 2) untrue. And yeah it's easy to speak (write actually, but I digress) because... well... I do have fingers. I do know the language. It's pretty easy to write out a coherent thought if you have those two skills.
Also, how the heck does one go about "making his own luck"?
I don't know, but I think there is a reason why thousands of professional sports players, coaches, and refs have said the same thing...
It's like this:
Most people will lose because of bad luck. Most champions experience the same bad luck, but they are prepared for it, fight through it, do whatever they have to do to win.
Like I (kind of) said: you can worry about luck all day. 1) It isn't going away and 2) it isn't why someone is losing.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions?
I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
I think that in hots blizzard should strengthen "safe play" in relationship to all-ins/risky builds. I don't mind the strong aoe spells because they can be mitigated by spreading out your units and that's a skill in the current state of the game. I hope that they introduces and removes powerful/massable 1a units to encourage positioning and board control.
Clouds argument is really offensive...but i completely agree. The gamble aspect is ridiculous and really bad players have chances against the top pros. They are trying to make it too generalised like WoW which is great for sales, but really sad for the competitive scene
Thor removal is good, but a Colossus replacement would do improve SC2 exponentially, IMO. I also think they shouldn't have said which units they planned on removing because now Carriers/Mothership/Thor will be ignored, whereas if they held their cards close to their chest, they might become more viable (EG carrier-friendly maps like BW).
On December 03 2011 09:19 archonOOid wrote: I think that in hots blizzard should strengthen "safe play" in relationship to all-ins/risky builds. I don't mind the strong aoe spells because they can be mitigated by spreading out your units and that's a skill in the current state of the game. I hope that they introduces and removes powerful/massable 1a units to encourage positioning and board control.
I also wonder about island maps too. Since warcraft 3 we have not seen any island maps unless maybe the reason for that, is it's too restrictive of play or too slanted towards certain races?
Just my opinion but if a unit is designed as a "siege" type unit, it should be two or more of the below:
- hard to maneuver(significantly slower than your main army) - vulnerable without support - requires setup time before it can do its job
brood lords and siege tanks fill two of the above points. Collosus only fills 1 - they can be moved together in the death ball with only stalkers being significantly faster. anyways again just my opinion.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions?
I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Smart casting definitely kills the amount of skill it takes to do such things and hopefully it doesn't get overexposed in the next update. Definitely going to be interesting to see how Blizzard tries to balance it out.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
To be fair, I've heard similar comments from multiple tourny winners.
and it is not only terran players that whine. contrary to what most people think.
White-Ra: 'I'm waiting for it because I can make more special tactics here But at the same time too many spell units and Protoss needs too much gas!! We need some cheaper units for Protoss too.'
This is an excellent observation, many people forget about this.
tbh cloud is right, blizzard has released so many patch for this game already, youve got to realise how badly design the game is. It feel like this is not a blizzard game, but just a pure dustin browder one. I still remember him going "Well if SC2 has some problems BW doesnt have, dont play SC2 and go play BW". As cloud said, I dont think they will be able to stabilize the game even just to what it is now. Sad but true.
Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
On December 03 2011 10:17 Jedclark wrote: Cloud... I hope he doesn't quit, since I really enjoy watching his play.
I am playing a lot and I won't quit. I think even more people will play with the expansion, no matter how good or bad blizzard makes it. There's way too much money in the scene and I believe many more people will become full time progamers with hots.
White-Ra: 'I'm waiting for it because I can make more special tactics here But at the same time too many spell units and Protoss needs too much gas!! We need some cheaper units for Protoss too.'
This is an excellent observation, many people forget about this.
Yep. I wish Blizzard realised that instead of adding more expensive units. :/
On December 03 2011 10:18 awu25 wrote: Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
Says this, yet doesn't win any tournaments
I wasn't aware that was a requirement to have an opinion
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
Well he said protoss changes. The most exciting thing for protoss imo are the new Nexus abilities. Plus the oracle is pretty awesome.
I'm with orly in being a little unsure about the terran changes. They definitely have the most boring additions.
Blizzard seems to not want to change any of the fundamentals of the game which I think is bad. Just adding gimmicky units won't magically fix things . Hopefully they get a bit more bold in their changes
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
Well he said protoss changes. The most exciting thing for protoss imo are the new Nexus abilities. Plus the oracle is pretty awesome.
I'm with orly in being a little unsure about the terran changes. They definitely have the most boring additions.
No, Terran actually has the best. They are solid, non gimmicky, reliable unit designs apart from the shredder thingy. You can balance them easy, they have a set role what to do, when to build, and against what.
Protoss and Zerg have way over the top, "cool looking" (DB design philosophy) gimmicky shit. How do you want to balance the replicator? Nexus recall in conjunction with Warpgate? The Viper with its hook and d-web, burrow moving banelings and charging ultralisks?
On December 03 2011 10:17 Jedclark wrote: Cloud... I hope he doesn't quit, since I really enjoy watching his play.
I am playing a lot and I won't quit. I think even more people will play with the expansion, no matter how good or bad blizzard makes it. There's way too much money in the scene and I believe many more people will become full time progamers with hots.
Cloud many people agree with you but this thread will bring mostly haters. I'm sure a lot of sc2 players who didn't play bw will probably get defensive and just shit on you to defend their game. This is kind of sad but it's the #1 reason whenever bw is mentioned in balance/game design/strategy threads it turns into a flame festival and you get called a "bw elitist."
Ignoring all of that you're completely right about the power of AoE abilities in sc2. Blizzard could mitigate this by making these units require more micro but they seem intent on doing exactly the opposite. "Oh, infestors running ahead of zerg armies and getting killed by the zerg player has poor control? We'll just reduce their speed." Recall that one of the main reasons zergs had so much trouble in the first place before the massive fungal change (to primarily an AoE attack) was that protoss armies were just out-dpsing zerg armies in the mid-game and there wasn't shit a zerg player could do. If a protoss just camped all game on 3 bases they would crush a zerg regardless of how ahead the zerg player was economically.
Really what we're seeing is Blizzard play whack-a-mole with fundamental issues in the game design.
Man how can you be so down on something that isn't even out yet...I think it will be challenging to balance HotS, but that said Blizzard won't release it if it's terrible. It's ridiculous to go on what was at Blizzcon because you know the final product is going to have a LOT of changes.
all these people criticizing cloud make me smile, not because they just probably suck at this game, but because they got no respect for others opinions, and keep blaming the bad results of that player. Sorta like when LiquidJinro said that protoss are stronger than terran in early and late game, and people were saying him to play better, and that if he didn't have a positive mind, that state of mind would have fucked him up. Cool that there are people who criticize how liquidjinro play. If I was him I would have said them "oh, if you can do better come to mlg".. I think that if you wish to criticize someone personally, like most of you did, you should be better than him, unless you are a fool, and a lot of people seems to be fools.
Anyway, I'm looking forward for hots. I don't have a opinion right now. This game is a beta, how could have I one?
I really agree with Bischus take on it, especially the oracle "you wanna harass? build oracle, its built only for that" fucking stupid, hope they remove units like that.
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
Well he said protoss changes. The most exciting thing for protoss imo are the new Nexus abilities. Plus the oracle is pretty awesome.
I'm with orly in being a little unsure about the terran changes. They definitely have the most boring additions.
No, Terran actually has the best. They are solid, non gimmicky, reliable unit designs apart from the shredder thingy. You can balance them easy, they have a set role what to do, when to build, and against what.
Protoss and Zerg have way over the top, "cool looking" (DB design philosophy) gimmicky shit. How do you want to balance the replicator? Nexus recall in conjunction with Warpgate? The Viper with its hook and d-web, burrow moving banelings and charging ultralisks?
I agree that the replicator is really dumb. And I am doubtful about the burrow movement for banes and charging ultralisks. Recall might be broken, but I still really like the idea.
Was the defiler gimmicky? Or the lurker? The viper and swarmhost are no more gimmicky than those two units, and I think they add roles and diversity that zerg needs badly (and I think that they are both by far the best additions in HotS). The hook for the Viper looks ridiculous, but I think it might be good for picking apart the deathball we see too often.
Face it. BW style is dead. They will not change the fundamental game play. BW style unit movement and army positioning is gone. Highly doubt they'll fix the instant army melt-age either. I stopped watch SC2 games after they lost their fresh appeal. SC2 for me will just be another fun game to play.
On December 03 2011 07:24 Genie1 wrote: Hmm a divide in the community could happen if the game isn't balanced enough and I would have to agree with some of the pros about there concerns as it will change the metagame entirely and will have to learn new strategies that work since the old ones won't always work.
I'm worried about this
coming from the call of duty community, that's exactly what happened to the COD series
now I'm not comparing blizzard to activision/infinity ward/treyarch but blizzard really needs to careful about how they go about HoTS, I think it might have been a mistake for them to preview all these new units without really knowing how they will affect the game yet, obviously they wanted to show us something, but it's produced a ton of doubt in the community
hopefully they're at least trying to make it as balanced and non-gimmicky as possible
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
Well he said protoss changes. The most exciting thing for protoss imo are the new Nexus abilities. Plus the oracle is pretty awesome.
I'm with orly in being a little unsure about the terran changes. They definitely have the most boring additions.
No, Terran actually has the best. They are solid, non gimmicky, reliable unit designs apart from the shredder thingy. You can balance them easy, they have a set role what to do, when to build, and against what.
Protoss and Zerg have way over the top, "cool looking" (DB design philosophy) gimmicky shit. How do you want to balance the replicator? Nexus recall in conjunction with Warpgate? The Viper with its hook and d-web, burrow moving banelings and charging ultralisks?
Was the defiler gimmicky? Or the lurker? The viper and swarmhost are no more gimmicky than those two units, and I think they add roles and diversity that zerg needs badly (and I think that they are both by far the best additions in HotS). The hook for the Viper looks ridiculous, but I think it might be good for picking apart the deathball we see too often.
I said nothing about the Swarmhost. The Viper is bad because of the synergies with the other units. The hook is completely retarded to say the least. AOE currently in the game is easy to use and extremely strong. The Viper flies, and it adds so much power and combinations that can't be balanced (infestor+viper+broodlord/ultraling) for instance. BL / Infestor is already by far the most cost efficient composition there is, because of the chemistry of their abilities.
Zerg was originally designed to be ineffective and "swarm" their enemies with sheer unit masses, that's the only way to balance Zerg around injects. Now they are going to make Zerg really really cost efficient with their casters, in addition to their unrivaled macro mechanics. How on earth do you want to balance that? It will add the same fucking dilemma Protoss has currently. Protoss has to be balanced around Warpgate, so their units suck, and their units have to be weak early, and aoe / casters have to make up for it in the later game by being extremely efficient. Zerg units suck because of Injects, so their economy has to make up for it. It can't work without breaking the game. You would have to make Zerg basic units completely worthless so they won't get to strong with those abilities, but that would make them even more fragile early on. I can't see it working.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
On December 03 2011 07:24 Genie1 wrote: Hmm a divide in the community could happen if the game isn't balanced enough and I would have to agree with some of the pros about there concerns as it will change the metagame entirely and will have to learn new strategies that work since the old ones won't always work.
I'm worried about this
coming from the call of duty community, that's exactly what happened to the COD series
now I'm not comparing blizzard to activision/infinity ward/treyarch but blizzard really needs to careful about how they go about HoTS, I think it might have been a mistake for them to preview all these new units without really knowing how they will affect the game yet, obviously they wanted to show us something, but it's produced a ton of doubt in the community
hopefully they're at least trying to make it as balanced and non-gimmicky as possible
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
Early cheese is strong of course, but the game is still in its infancy, new maps and HotS will probably stabilize that to a certain degree. But calling the game itself as a whole a gamble is not very accurate.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
Early cheese is strong of course, but the game is still in its infancy, new maps and HotS will probably stabilize that to a certain degree. But calling the game itself as a whole a gamble is not very accurate.
In blizzard we shakily trust (no one else to trust).
It will probably still go through few larger phases of unit tweaking, inserting and removing as there's still another expansion to publish. Just hope they don't force in units because some fancy extremely situational gimmicks.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
And build order wins never happened in BroodWar? His point was that army engagements are way more important in this game. It's a great point, because since the mechanics are easier you have to control what you have better than your opponent or, if you're equally skilled, you'll never recover from too large of a loss. I don't see where there is more gambling, unless you think BW didn't have cheese or build order losses.
I'm pleasantly surprised at the Pro comments. Cloud was the only guy who completely shit on Blizzard, and he was the guy who left because he, I guess from what he's said, felt he was losing games to people he shouldn't have lost to. Everyone else were relatively different in their opinions on the units, but they all came down to "Meh, let's wait and see if Blizzard can do what we believe they can."
Which is, of course, the only reasonable answer. Unless you just want to complain. Then you can just shit on a bunch of units that haven't even entered full scale beat testing yet.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions?
I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better.
Do you think the problems apply just to protoss-related matchups (usually, shitty blind all-ins work in every matchup sometimes and they worked in BW a little too), or is it a game wide thing?
I definitely understand and agree with the points you're making, but it seems basically a TvP/ZvP issue rather than a game-wide one, and has less to do with the spellcasters IMO. Relative to everyone else, protoss has a ton of hard counters (colossi v marine/zergling/ghost/infestor, marauder v stalker, early-midgame sentries against fucking anything in a single engagement) which lead to a lot more situations where you're like "fuck, I don't want these units" (ie. a roach/hydra max against stalker/colossi, too many vikings against not many colossi/too many marauders and not enough marine/ghost against zealot/archon, etc.).
As long as blizzard avoids more godawful colossi/marauder/sentry (yes the sentry is bad, it forces players to blindly prepare for unscouted all-ins as part of good play rofl) style units, I don't think HoTS will be a step backwards. If you look at it from a role perspective, for terran they're basically trying to replace spider mines and make mech more stable while zerg gets a unit which resembles lurkers for map control and a weird caster that thinks it's a flying defiler. It's just protoss that looks worrying, with a weird hard counter to mass muta (yay), a cute harass unit that's probably unnecessary thanks to buffed warp prisms and some OP/useless nexus spells that won't make release.
Either way, nothing protoss gets should make the timings any stronger (thank god), while zerg/terran might get better tools to deal with them. Honestly, ZvT & the mirrors just look like they'll get more interesting and PvT/PvZ will remain the game of poker and reactive countering that it currently is past the corrosive all-in phase. Not very BW or mechanics based but still a game of skill.
On December 03 2011 10:18 awu25 wrote: Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
Says this, yet doesn't win any tournaments
He won more tournaments than you thats for sure. Gotto love this random guys bashing pro players.
Regarding OP we´ll see about dat Hots and what it brings.
From Cloud´s point of view i do see why he thinks that for now it doesnt seem too good, some changes/units seem to be kinda random and just accentuate the bad things in some races, other do seem to be the fix needed for some issues but on paper only, as their actual stats seem to be kinda off.
I mean looking at Viper for example, do zerg really needs another aoe spell ? How will people deal with fungal + banelings + blinding cloud? Just sounds random and doesnt really adds any more complexity to the game as its just another way of allowing players to a-move the main army while just wreaking havoc with casters and mass aoe.
Protoss already has warp-ins. This alone makes its hard to catch a protoss off guard because he can always warp-in units to defend key points. Do protoss really needs on top of that recall AND a summonable cannon ? I mean seriously ? I would love to hear the reasoning behind this ideias.
Cloud is basically describing WoL. The best player doesn't always win. We know the skill ceiling is low, but I don't think the expansion will exacerbate it at all.
I think the mechanics skill cap has not been reached yet. Maybe its just me but wait till the BW players come over, then we get to appreciate how far they can push the mechanics in starcraft 2.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions?
I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better.
Do you think the problems apply just to protoss-related matchups (usually, shitty blind all-ins work in every matchup sometimes and they worked in BW a little too), or is it a game wide thing?
I definitely understand and agree with the points you're making, but it seems basically a TvP/ZvP issue rather than a game-wide one, and has less to do with the spellcasters IMO. Relative to everyone else, protoss has a ton of hard counters (colossi v marine/zergling/ghost/infestor, marauder v stalker, early-midgame sentries against fucking anything in a single engagement) which lead to a lot more situations where you're like "fuck, I don't want these units" (ie. a roach/hydra max against stalker/colossi, too many vikings against not many colossi/too many marauders and not enough marine/ghost against zealot/archon, etc.).
As long as blizzard avoids more godawful colossi/marauder/sentry (yes the sentry is bad, it forces players to blindly prepare for unscouted all-ins as part of good play rofl) style units, I don't think HoTS will be a step backwards. If you look at it from a role perspective, for terran they're basically trying to replace spider mines and make mech more stable while zerg gets a unit which resembles lurkers for map control and a weird caster that thinks it's a flying defiler. It's just protoss that looks worrying, with a weird hard counter to mass muta (yay), a cute harass unit that's probably unnecessary thanks to buffed warp prisms and some OP/useless nexus spells that won't make release.
Either way, nothing protoss gets should make the timings any stronger (thank god), while zerg/terran might get better tools to deal with them. Honestly, ZvT & the mirrors just look like they'll get more interesting and PvT/PvZ will remain the game of poker and reactive countering that it currently is past the corrosive all-in phase. Not very BW or mechanics based but still a game of skill.
Nothing in the Toss all-in arsenal is as powerful as 1-1-1 which has a 80% chance of succeeding even if the player knows that it is coming or one of its umpteen variations. If anything, Terran timings will get nerfed with the addition of the replicator.
On December 03 2011 11:24 decemberscalm wrote: Face it. BW style is dead. They will not change the fundamental game play. BW style unit movement and army positioning is gone. Highly doubt they'll fix the instant army melt-age either. I stopped watch SC2 games after they lost their fresh appeal. SC2 for me will just be another fun game to play.
I really hope Blizzard reconsiders their stance on unit pathfinding, specifically the control group movement.
I'm not asking for 8 direction movement or retarted AI that need 10 clicks to get down a ramp. I just want the units to not stick together like a blob of magnetic gel when I move them with the same control group. It could be something between WC3 pathfinding and the current one, so units at least maintain a certain space between them without necessarily move in an formation. The engine "can do anything" after all... AOE would be way easier to balance this way too.
I saw cloud on another post, the guy is just turning into a biased mess. Idk if he has been having some bad days or something but he first said toss took no skill to play, disregarded any notion of terran all ins and then said blizzard can't balance for crap. He is starting to sound like Idra and aTn is going to suffer for it. Is he even a top level pro? I'm just really confused by all the hate he is spewing around.
On December 03 2011 12:08 0neder wrote: They're proposing new units based on the existing viking/colossus dynamic. This makes me think that sadly SC2 will not reach it's full potential. =(
I agree with cloud, but then the units arent finalized. so I just hope blizzard create more interesting units. The replicant is the one that really annoys me, looks like they couldnt think of anything and hence put it in there.
I agree the smart casting, anti clumping and mbs took a lot of the challenge and the fun out of the game, but then it's understandable why blizzard would do that. The pathing had many issues, and was probably not intended to do the many weird things it would make units do. So do you fix the bugs or do you let it be? As a company, you'd probably want to fix it, but then thats leaves us with a lack of challenge. If they add more micro-intensive spells/units (like the siege tank, reaver, vulture).
Some of the new units they put in there do have the potential, but still feels a little bit bland.
On December 03 2011 10:10 MadJack wrote: tbh cloud is right, blizzard has released so many patch for this game already, youve got to realise how badly design the game is.
StarCraft 2 is currently on patch 1.4.something.
A year and a half after release, Brood War was on patch 1.5.
'Course, a year and a half after release, the expansion was already out for the original. Still, this argument is pretty nonsensical, Brood War was still releasing major balance patches three years after release.
On December 03 2011 12:31 dartoo wrote: I agree with cloud, but then the units arent finalized. so I just hope blizzard create more interesting units. The replicant is the one that really annoys me, looks like they couldnt think of anything and hence put it in there.
I agree the smart casting, anti clumping and mbs took a lot of the challenge and the fun out of the game, but then it's understandable why blizzard would do that. The pathing had many issues, and was probably not intended to do the many weird things it would make units do. So do you fix the bugs or do you let it be? As a company, you'd probably want to fix it, but then thats leaves us with a lack of challenge. If they add more micro-intensive spells/units (like the siege tank, reaver, vulture).
Some of the new units they put in there do have the potential, but still feels a little bit bland.
The whole bug thing is an excuse. Other games with bugs had them integrated into the sequel especially competitive games where said bugs were used often.
I don't mind the path fighting but I would like removal of Smart Cast + MBS (to a certain extent) and other things. In BW it always amazes me when pro gamers use their spell casters so efficiently due to lack of smart cast and other stuff. In SC2 not so much. I want that back for SC2 Blizzard .
I do wish they would have used the Corsair with Disruption Web + Optic Flare-like ability(for DT + Corsair combination) rather than the what appears to be a-move Tempest (keep the Carrier, add Corsair to deal with Mutalisks and other AA that Phoenix alone can't do so well against).
(Phoenix are good against Mutalisks but I still miss the Corsair; Corsair can be really effective against larger numbers of Mutalisks thanks to splash.)
Really though the Corsair would add new options for Protoss. It would require skill and well other tactics. Not every unit needs a capital ship (just keep Carriers and call it a day. Even if no one uses it, Corsair can fill in the role of Tempest).
Only new Protoss unit I really like is the Oracle.
The replicant is okay. The problem is the fact that why are the Protoss relying on other race's units instead of using their own >.<. Should bring back Dark Archon instead.
Honestly I don't see why Blizzard is going out of their way to not bring back any BW units.
Sure I like the new units for map making (any new SC2 assets I welcome gladly) but in terms of non-modded normal SC2 games, it doesn't make sense.
The Warhound for example might as well be a Goliath with splash damage.
Tempest might as well be a bigger Corsair with ground attack.
IDK about others but I really want the Corsair back instead of Tempest >.>.
On December 03 2011 12:31 dartoo wrote: I agree with cloud, but then the units arent finalized. so I just hope blizzard create more interesting units. The replicant is the one that really annoys me, looks like they couldnt think of anything and hence put it in there.
I agree the smart casting, anti clumping and mbs took a lot of the challenge and the fun out of the game, but then it's understandable why blizzard would do that. The pathing had many issues, and was probably not intended to do the many weird things it would make units do. So do you fix the bugs or do you let it be? As a company, you'd probably want to fix it, but then thats leaves us with a lack of challenge. If they add more micro-intensive spells/units (like the siege tank, reaver, vulture).
Some of the new units they put in there do have the potential, but still feels a little bit bland.
The whole bug thing is an excuse. Other games with bugs had them integrated into the sequel especially competitive games where said bugs were used often.
Hmm.. thats interesting, which games did that? Keeping the bugs would've been tougher for blizzard, cause they just didnt improve it, they changed the whole system, I think they went from A* in broodwar to swarm AI,thats a massive change, building in bugs is not quite the right way of doing things (from a development persepctive).
On December 03 2011 12:31 dartoo wrote: I agree with cloud, but then the units arent finalized. so I just hope blizzard create more interesting units. The replicant is the one that really annoys me, looks like they couldnt think of anything and hence put it in there.
I agree the smart casting, anti clumping and mbs took a lot of the challenge and the fun out of the game, but then it's understandable why blizzard would do that. The pathing had many issues, and was probably not intended to do the many weird things it would make units do. So do you fix the bugs or do you let it be? As a company, you'd probably want to fix it, but then thats leaves us with a lack of challenge. If they add more micro-intensive spells/units (like the siege tank, reaver, vulture).
Some of the new units they put in there do have the potential, but still feels a little bit bland.
The whole bug thing is an excuse. Other games with bugs had them integrated into the sequel especially competitive games where said bugs were used often.
Hmm.. thats interesting, which games did that? Keeping the bugs would've been tougher for blizzard, cause they just didnt improve it, they changed the whole system, I think they went from A* in broodwar to swarm AI,thats a massive change, building in bugs is not quite the right way of doing things (from a development persepctive).
Previously when blizzard hyped sc2 with the statement that the engine can do ANYTHING , Well it can do almost everything except simulate broodwar.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from
- AoE damage is just too high.
That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz.
I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)?
Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions?
I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better.
I know I'm not top-tier in SC2, but I don't understand how you can say defending against a 6 gate or double forge is a toss up (pun intended) when you are playing a race that has a unit that can jump cliffs to scout, go 1-1-1 and use air to scout, or scan. Aside from that, moving a single marine out to see the army. How are you going to get hit with a two base timing and not have scouted it. And I'm not just being sassy, as I Terran player I would like to know the answer to that question.
On December 03 2011 12:31 dartoo wrote: I agree with cloud, but then the units arent finalized. so I just hope blizzard create more interesting units. The replicant is the one that really annoys me, looks like they couldnt think of anything and hence put it in there.
I agree the smart casting, anti clumping and mbs took a lot of the challenge and the fun out of the game, but then it's understandable why blizzard would do that. The pathing had many issues, and was probably not intended to do the many weird things it would make units do. So do you fix the bugs or do you let it be? As a company, you'd probably want to fix it, but then thats leaves us with a lack of challenge. If they add more micro-intensive spells/units (like the siege tank, reaver, vulture).
Some of the new units they put in there do have the potential, but still feels a little bit bland.
The whole bug thing is an excuse. Other games with bugs had them integrated into the sequel especially competitive games where said bugs were used often.
Hmm.. thats interesting, which games did that? Keeping the bugs would've been tougher for blizzard, cause they just didnt improve it, they changed the whole system, I think they went from A* in broodwar to swarm AI,thats a massive change, building in bugs is not quite the right way of doing things (from a development persepctive).
The only games that I know that this happens is in Capcom fighting games. Street Fighter 2 vanilla didn't have a combo system, and linking multiple moves together with perfect timing so that they couldn't be blocked was unintended. They turned that bug into the combo system that pretty much every 2d fighter ever has used. In Capcom Vs Snk 2 there was a way to roll and then cancel it into super moves or something, so you could avoid a fireball and then 0frame a super out of it and punish haaaard. That was definitely a bug but the level of skill required to execute it was so high that it was unreliable and it became part of the game, some tournies banned it, some didn't. I don't know of any other competitive game that embraced any bugs or glitches like that.
On December 03 2011 06:45 Megatronn wrote: Cloud's opinion is.. interesting.
Well I agree with him. There are many strategies that if Flash himself did, would auto-lose to another strat (and not like a cannon rush or bunker rush or whatever).
On December 03 2011 10:10 MadJack wrote: tbh cloud is right, blizzard has released so many patch for this game already, youve got to realise how badly design the game is.
StarCraft 2 is currently on patch 1.4.something.
A year and a half after release, Brood War was on patch 1.5.
'Course, a year and a half after release, the expansion was already out for the original. Still, this argument is pretty nonsensical, Brood War was still releasing major balance patches three years after release.
SC1+BW had a grand total of 4 balance patches. Your argument is invalid.
The Warhound for example might as well be a Goliath with splash damage.
Tempest might as well be a bigger Corsair with ground attack.
IDK about others but I really want the Corsair back instead of Tempest >.>.
Well about the bugs and the BW units, Dustin Browder made it very clear that they were not trying to remake BW. "If you want BW, go play BW" (That was what he said).
Having said that, I gotta agree with ClouD. New units will require a lot of balancing. And as if this wasn't hard enough, most of the units have very specific goals. I fear that the fact of having so many spellcasters in the game will make the game too micro oriented and less strategy/understanding-the-AI oriented. It's like moving away from Starcraft towards Warcraft.
The Warhound for example might as well be a Goliath with splash damage.
Tempest might as well be a bigger Corsair with ground attack.
IDK about others but I really want the Corsair back instead of Tempest >.>.
Well about the bugs and the BW units, Dustin Browder made it very clear that they were not trying to remake BW. "If you want BW, go play BW" (That was what he said).
Having said that, I gotta agree with ClouD. New units will require a lot of balancing. And as if this wasn't hard enough, most of the units have very specific goals. I fear that the fact of having so many spellcasters in the game will make the game too micro oriented and less strategy/understanding-the-AI oriented. It's like moving away from Starcraft towards Warcraft.
The bigger, more powerful, one-only Thor is the first step towards hero units in Warcraft: Legacy of the Void. :S
But I think the point of micro in BW or SC2 have always been about making the most of basic units. I'm less impressed by someone going crazy with Blademaster than I am with 12 mnms surviving and killing Lurkers. Most of the new units are just very gimmicky and one-dimensional and will probably make SC2 an even bigger game of hard-counters.
I woulda thought no one could argue with cloud on his concerns, which are shared by far more people than this thread makes it look like.
In video games as a general rule, if something is more powerful, it's harder to pull off than less powerful ones. You can find a infinite amount of examples to this. However this is not the case in SC2. Everything has almost the same difficulty of execution. This means if you have something in your arsenal, you can mostly use it. When this something happens to counter what your opponent has to offer, you simply win.
TL,DR: If things were harder to execute, this would give the opponent room for reaction, which would leave more space for skill which makes Cloud right.
I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
Well let me give you a quote from midas, and what he thinks about sc2
"I think the trend nowadays is to make things easy and accessible. In terms of cartoons, the popular trend is to draw things in very simple, basic styles. It makes it easy for the reader to engage. I'm going to confess that in the off-season, I tried out StarCraft 2 and League of Legends. I was so surprised when I first played StarCraft 2. I couldn't believe that such an easy game exists. Same with League of Legends. I guess the best way to attract people these days is to make things easy and simple."
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
I second that! You do not hear any Korean Pros (particularly the good ones) whining about so much randomness etc. in the game, only foreign pros who lack results! I mean if it' sooo random, why the hell the guys who are doing good overall are a handfull?
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
Wow dude, you first claim that you have great results and then go on to say that your lack of results is attributed ti the fact that you didn't like the game in the first place? It's perfectly fine to not like the game and think that HOTS will be bullshit but judging by tournament results overall the game is not as random as you make it out to be. MLG Orlando which you use as an example i would say is the exception that makes the rule. Anyway, glhf
Pro's can be replaced, the game is what will be permanent, hopefully Blizzard gets it right one day and stops patching everything.
I know the scene is much bigger than Foreign BW was, and a few of the pro's from the BW period and on cannot handle such a big scene. They are no longer the big fish in the small pond. Just a fish in a large pond.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
Exactly, and correct me if i am wrong but most games use randomness a mechanism for enhancing the play and i don't mean jsut computer games. What about all ball games, board games, card games etc. We all know that luck may play a huge role in football sometimes (greece 2004 euro cup?) but most of the time the better team will win.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
Wow dude, you first claim that you have great results and then go on to say that your lack of results is attributed ti the fact that you didn't like the game in the first place? It's perfectly fine to not like the game and think that HOTS will be bullshit but judging by tournament results overall the game is not as random as you make it out to be. MLG Orlando which you use as an example i would say is the exception that makes the rule. Anyway, glhf
he never said he had lack of results....he said "lack of results" just to use the other guys wording. He went on to say he thinks he has results any foreigner would want.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
EDIT: When I say "simple tweaks" I don't mean they are actually simple. What I suggested could indeed make a huge difference for better or worse. I mean simple in terms of design variables.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
Wow dude, you first claim that you have great results and then go on to say that your lack of results is attributed ti the fact that you didn't like the game in the first place? It's perfectly fine to not like the game and think that HOTS will be bullshit but judging by tournament results overall the game is not as random as you make it out to be. MLG Orlando which you use as an example i would say is the exception that makes the rule. Anyway, glhf
he never said he had lack of results....he said "lack of results" just to use the other guys wording. He went on to say he thinks he has results any foreigner would want.
I'm just curious what his results HAVE been. What tournaments has he won, or what notable placements has he achieved? Liquipedia doesn't even have an article on him. His attitude seems similar to TT1's attitude, another mid-tier foreigner who seems frustrated that he can't seem to connect the dots the way players like MVP, Huk or Nestea have.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
In broodwar if you have 15 templar selected and use storm, they all storm the same spot.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
I played broodwar and I am D+ protoss iccup , selecting each high templars to storms is pretty easy in my opinion....
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
I played broodwar and I am D+ protoss iccup , selecting each high templars to storms is pretty easy in my opinion....
If you need to control 5 Templars, selecting individual temps is not NEARLY as easy as Tabing through individual templars on a single control group. The closest you can get to that kind of simplicity of control is putting each individual templar on a ctrl group.
What I proposed as a hypothetical solution to a common complaint is a compromise between the two difficulties.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
I played broodwar and I am D+ protoss iccup , selecting each high templars to storms is pretty easy in my opinion....
If you need to control 5 Templars, selecting individual temps is not NEARLY as easy as Tabing through individual templars on a single control group. The closest you can get to that kind of simplicity of control is putting each individual templar on a ctrl group.
What I proposed as a hypothetical solution to a common complaint is a compromise between the two difficulties.
it's not going to happen , unless blizzard hires you, in LOTV game development team.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
I played broodwar and I am D+ protoss iccup , selecting each high templars to storms is pretty easy in my opinion....
If you need to control 5 Templars, selecting individual temps is not NEARLY as easy as Tabing through individual templars on a single control group. The closest you can get to that kind of simplicity of control is putting each individual templar on a ctrl group.
What I proposed as a hypothetical solution to a common complaint is a compromise between the two difficulties.
it's not going to happen , unless blizzard hires you, in LOTV game development team.
I think you've misinterpreted my "theorycraft" which was simply meant as a discussion point, for an actual suggestion that I want to see in the game. I'm quite alright with spell-casting the way it is now, and am under no illusion that intentionally breaking the UI simply to make the mechanics of a strategy game more difficult is the best decision to make when trying to separate skill-tiers.
I personally believe that, inasmuch as it's possible, proper decision-making should be rewarded more heavily than superior mechanics.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
Maybe you should quit being a professional gamer and get a normal job and play bw in spare time. Im not having a go, i'm just saying maybe that would be more enjoyable for you.
I find it funny when casters say "X has such insane macro" when all you have to do even when things are going on all over the place is just press 6 then hold a for a few seconds. then smartcasting is just silly. "great storms"....hmmm not that hard. even then you still see many protoss storming bio kiting chargelots meaning chargelots take more damage from the storm. I agree that it seems in brood war even if the far superior player finds themself slightly behind there are just so many ways for their skill to shine through that they virtually always still come out on top. whereas in sc2 it seems once a player gets behind or the first engagement goes badly there's almost no way back. Obviously on average the stronger players win more often still in sc2 but even as a shit player in bw I would never beat flash at 200 attempts whereas I honestly think give me 20/30 games against nestea and I'd take one off him eventually.
" And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement." ever heard idra
I still think sc2 is a 'good' game just not amazing like bw. It's less about mechanics and more (focussed on) strategy. I also really appreciate the thriving sc2 foreign scene, rather than just wishing sc2 would die or people stop watching it I'd rather more attention be paid to the foreign bw scene and people appreciate both as some of the top current bw foreigners are probably way better 'technically' at rts' than many 'pro' sc2 players and it suck they get a tiny fraction of the money and fame just because they play the game they love rather than playing a game they don't like just for money.
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
I played broodwar and I am D+ protoss iccup , selecting each high templars to storms is pretty easy in my opinion....
If you need to control 5 Templars, selecting individual temps is not NEARLY as easy as Tabing through individual templars on a single control group. The closest you can get to that kind of simplicity of control is putting each individual templar on a ctrl group.
What I proposed as a hypothetical solution to a common complaint is a compromise between the two difficulties.
it's not going to happen , unless blizzard hires you, in LOTV game development team.
I think you've misinterpreted my "theorycraft" which was simply meant as a discussion point, for an actual suggestion that I want to see in the game. I'm quite alright with spell-casting the way it is now, and am under no illusion that intentionally breaking the UI simply to make the mechanics of a strategy game more difficult is the best decision to make when trying to separate skill-tiers.
I personally believe that, inasmuch as it's possible, proper decision-making should be rewarded more heavily than superior mechanics.
Proper decision making comes from experience and not just mindless spam and win for the player with superior mechanics .Let's take example of hyuk having 470 apm and Flash has only 360 apm , Does flash stand a chance against hyuk ? Of course on first impression would be " wow such a high apm from a progamer he has to be GOOD right ? " , sadly he isn't when you watch hyuk games vs fantasy or even flash , you will be wondering , where is the apm is going to when he casually allows fantasy to drop all over the place when a single sunken could have deter fantasy drop play , Correct decision ? or merely mindless spamming at hatcheries ? Is the question .
Flash doesn't even spams as much as hyuk and yet you see his game sense and "Proper decision making " really shine ,ranging from his deliberate line of siege of tank which is unbreakable , to his really sound TvT , in which he is almost unbeatable .It's not a matter of illusion that we are having here the fact is UI interface in broodwar ,which is outdated to many has given us opportunity to play the game as it is , difficult and yet very simple to understand .
On December 03 2011 17:12 D_K_night wrote: I don't think we can ever agree with how the game should play.
Either you keep the old limitations of BW (only 12 units per control group, clunky unit AI, no smart casting, etc), or you start moving forward with innovation.
The more I read this thread, the more it sounds like people just want BW. There is BW mod for SC2 but not sure how far along the author is - but if it's near done and has some good polish, is there any reason why people can't just gravitate to that?
I don't agree that people want brood war. It's more like people want this game to feel like brood war without necessarily being it.
Actually this can be done with somewhat simple tweaks without going back 12 years. Imho, even a built in delay between smart-casted spells plus slightly more spread out armies could work wonders.
Even as small a change as having to TAB through each individual spell-caster on a control group to use multiple spells would probably help with this complaint. Storm - tab - Storm - tab - Storm - tab - etc. While still easier than BW, not nearly as simplified as the game doing all that work for you.
EDIT: They could take it a step further and not allow the shift-queuing of spells either. So it would have to go Storm - tab - T - Storm - tab - T - etc.
Do you really need to go the point , where like most people in here do , okay since bw is difficult lets make sc2 more difficult , you can only select 1 unit to micro ? , tab ? what's the point of having that , Everything in broodwar from using shift keys to queue up waypoints was necessary so the players can put a probe on patrol to scout around the players base while he macro's and tech's up .
You are making it seem like broodwar player has to go through hell to cast a storm , when it just a matter of selecting the unit and press T , Tab ? scrap that . Even broodwar players do not have to go through using tab do any of your extra annoying mechanics you were suggesting .
Right, all they have to do instead of using 5 templars on a hotkey and shift-queuing a ton of storms is individually click each one and THEN storm. WAY easier than Tab, am I right? Have you ever played BW?
I played broodwar and I am D+ protoss iccup , selecting each high templars to storms is pretty easy in my opinion....
not when you have a cheap crappy £3 chinese mouse
yeah it's not that hard but doing it quickly before they get sniped or that your storms are too late to help is certainly more tricky without smartcasting. .
What I don't quite get about these threads is that they are made up of two kinds of posts. Ones that are saying "Brood War was fine, why did you change it?" and the others saying "This is fine as it is, why change it?"
If this game can be made more fun and satisfactory, by whatever means, it should be done. I don't see the reason to oppose people who want their game to be as good as it can be. Instead of blocking each other people should learn to make a productive discussion by presenting insight, examples and making a good point.
How are these arguments about sc2 being worse even valid? If you compare BW to SC2, at least compare the games to their times from the release. Are you going to even bother to tell me that "worse" players never won when they did something random? This game is young, come back in a couple of years and comment again. And complaining that worse players can win is stupid. If the "better" player won every game, the competitive aspect of this game would be gone. For any sport, upsets happen when the worse team beats the better team, its natural. And overall the randomness of this game everybody claims is irrelevant, everything that happens is intended to happen. Units can't dodge and no random stats like that affect the gameplay. If you're going to make a claim that sc2 is a terrible game or not competitive at all, at least back it up properly and give better examples, other than BW which is not comparable because of the ages of the games.
Edit" Nvm, it doesn't matter. If you believe that then there is nothing I can say to change that as there is nothing you can say to change mines, so whatever.
I hate the argument "SC2 is too easy and it makes the game worse". Chess is an easy game to learn. Does that make it bad? SC2 is easy to learn compared to BW, but no one has come close to mastering it yet.
Cloud did make a good point though with the 6 gate example in PvT. But I think that has more to do with a design flaw in the warp gate mechanic taking away defenders advantage more than making the game "too easy".
On December 03 2011 18:39 AlphaNoodle wrote: How are these arguments about sc2 being worse even valid? If you compare BW to SC2, at least compare the games to their times from the release. Are you going to even bother to tell me that "worse" players never won when they did something random? This game is young, come back in a couple of years and comment again. And complaining that worse players can win is stupid. If the "better" player won every game, the competitive aspect of this game would be gone. For any sport, upsets happen when the worse team beats the better team, its natural. And overall the randomness of this game everybody claims is irrelevant, everything that happens is intended to happen. Units can't dodge and no random stats like that affect the gameplay. If you're going to make a claim that sc2 is a terrible game or not competitive at all, at least back it up properly and give better examples, other than BW which is not comparable because of the ages of the games.
On December 03 2011 18:39 happyness wrote: I hate the argument "SC2 is too easy and it makes the game worse". Chess is an easy game to learn. Does that make it bad? SC2 is easy to learn compared to BW, but no one has come close to mastering it yet.
Cloud did make a good point though with the 6 gate example in PvT. But I think that has more to do with a design flaw in the warp gate mechanic taking away defenders advantage more than making the game "too easy".
Both of these post talks about the time factor , well I will play along with you , Broodwar was released in the year 1998 and recently SC2 has been released in the year 2009 , How long has the development and game design has been taken place ? Roughly 10 years , one would have think from the experience of a good developer they would have been able to make a successor as worthy of it's predecessor . Common argument against broodwar , Bad AI , Unbearable Graphics, Very easy but hard to master macro and micro mechanics than again if the Bad AI has been really that bad , shouldn't stork or bisu be smashing their keyboard on the desk every time their dragoon freezes in their attempt to destroy a tank line ?
On December 03 2011 18:39 AlphaNoodle wrote: How are these arguments about sc2 being worse even valid? If you compare BW to SC2, at least compare the games to their times from the release. Are you going to even bother to tell me that "worse" players never won when they did something random? This game is young, come back in a couple of years and comment again. And complaining that worse players can win is stupid. If the "better" player won every game, the competitive aspect of this game would be gone. For any sport, upsets happen when the worse team beats the better team, its natural. And overall the randomness of this game everybody claims is irrelevant, everything that happens is intended to happen. Units can't dodge and no random stats like that affect the gameplay. If you're going to make a claim that sc2 is a terrible game or not competitive at all, at least back it up properly and give better examples, other than BW which is not comparable because of the ages of the games.
On December 03 2011 18:39 happyness wrote: I hate the argument "SC2 is too easy and it makes the game worse". Chess is an easy game to learn. Does that make it bad? SC2 is easy to learn compared to BW, but no one has come close to mastering it yet.
Cloud did make a good point though with the 6 gate example in PvT. But I think that has more to do with a design flaw in the warp gate mechanic taking away defenders advantage more than making the game "too easy".
Both of these post talks about the time factor , well I will play along with you , Broodwar was released in the year 1998 and recently SC2 has been released in the year 2009 , How long has the development and game design has been taken place ? Roughly 10 years , one would have think from the experience of a good developer they would have been able to make a successor as worthy of it's predecessor . Common argument against broodwar , Bad AI , Unbearable Graphics, Very easy but hard to master macro and micro mechanics than again if the Bad AI has been really that bad , shouldn't stork or bisu be smashing their keyboard on the desk every time their dragoon freezes in their attempt to destroy a tank line ?
I really don't see what the Bad AI has anything to do with what I was saying.
What I was saying was simply that sc2 players are still a loooong way off from reaching the skill ceiling.There may be design flaws, but the game is still hard to master. Easy to learn hard to master
On December 03 2011 18:39 AlphaNoodle wrote: How are these arguments about sc2 being worse even valid? If you compare BW to SC2, at least compare the games to their times from the release. Are you going to even bother to tell me that "worse" players never won when they did something random? This game is young, come back in a couple of years and comment again. And complaining that worse players can win is stupid. If the "better" player won every game, the competitive aspect of this game would be gone. For any sport, upsets happen when the worse team beats the better team, its natural. And overall the randomness of this game everybody claims is irrelevant, everything that happens is intended to happen. Units can't dodge and no random stats like that affect the gameplay. If you're going to make a claim that sc2 is a terrible game or not competitive at all, at least back it up properly and give better examples, other than BW which is not comparable because of the ages of the games.
On December 03 2011 18:39 happyness wrote: I hate the argument "SC2 is too easy and it makes the game worse". Chess is an easy game to learn. Does that make it bad? SC2 is easy to learn compared to BW, but no one has come close to mastering it yet.
Cloud did make a good point though with the 6 gate example in PvT. But I think that has more to do with a design flaw in the warp gate mechanic taking away defenders advantage more than making the game "too easy".
Both of these post talks about the time factor , well I will play along with you , Broodwar was released in the year 1998 and recently SC2 has been released in the year 2009 , How long has the development and game design has been taken place ? Roughly 10 years , one would have think from the experience of a good developer they would have been able to make a successor as worthy of it's predecessor . Common argument against broodwar , Bad AI , Unbearable Graphics, Very easy but hard to master macro and micro mechanics than again if the Bad AI has been really that bad , shouldn't stork or bisu be smashing their keyboard on the desk every time their dragoon freezes in their attempt to destroy a tank line ?
I really don't see what the Bad AI has anything to do with what I was saying.
What I was saying was simply that sc2 players are still a loooong way off from reaching the skill ceiling.There may be design flaws, but the game is still hard to master. Easy to learn hard to master
Same can be said for broodwar , We do not know how far is the skill ceiling in yellow's prime he thought it was the fastest way to play and no one can go faster than him and player likes jaedong and Flash who are rising stars , who are essentially playing the same game and yet plays much more faster than the older generation of pro gamers . So where is the skill ceiling for broodwar ?
I agree with Cloud's opinion that Heart of the Swarm will cause more problems than it'll actually fix because of unit compositions. There seems to be too much of the gamble aspect of the game with build orders, as well as the new units that are designed to be gimmicky.
On December 03 2011 18:39 AlphaNoodle wrote: How are these arguments about sc2 being worse even valid? If you compare BW to SC2, at least compare the games to their times from the release. Are you going to even bother to tell me that "worse" players never won when they did something random? This game is young, come back in a couple of years and comment again. And complaining that worse players can win is stupid. If the "better" player won every game, the competitive aspect of this game would be gone. For any sport, upsets happen when the worse team beats the better team, its natural. And overall the randomness of this game everybody claims is irrelevant, everything that happens is intended to happen. Units can't dodge and no random stats like that affect the gameplay. If you're going to make a claim that sc2 is a terrible game or not competitive at all, at least back it up properly and give better examples, other than BW which is not comparable because of the ages of the games.
On December 03 2011 18:39 happyness wrote: I hate the argument "SC2 is too easy and it makes the game worse". Chess is an easy game to learn. Does that make it bad? SC2 is easy to learn compared to BW, but no one has come close to mastering it yet.
Cloud did make a good point though with the 6 gate example in PvT. But I think that has more to do with a design flaw in the warp gate mechanic taking away defenders advantage more than making the game "too easy".
Both of these post talks about the time factor , well I will play along with you , Broodwar was released in the year 1998 and recently SC2 has been released in the year 2009 , How long has the development and game design has been taken place ? Roughly 10 years , one would have think from the experience of a good developer they would have been able to make a successor as worthy of it's predecessor . Common argument against broodwar , Bad AI , Unbearable Graphics, Very easy but hard to master macro and micro mechanics than again if the Bad AI has been really that bad , shouldn't stork or bisu be smashing their keyboard on the desk every time their dragoon freezes in their attempt to destroy a tank line ?
I really don't see what the Bad AI has anything to do with what I was saying.
What I was saying was simply that sc2 players are still a loooong way off from reaching the skill ceiling.There may be design flaws, but the game is still hard to master. Easy to learn hard to master
Same can be said for broodwar , We do not know how far is the skill ceiling in yellow's prime he thought it was the fastest way to play and no one can go faster than him and player likes jaedong and Flash who are rising stars , who are essentially playing the same game and yet plays much more faster than the older generation of pro gamers . So where is the skill ceiling for broodwar ?
It hasn't been reached yet either. I really don't see what you are getting at. I never said BW is a bad game or that SC2 is better. I just find the "BW is better than SC2 because it is more difficult" argument silly. You could argue other reasons for BW being better, but not because SC2 is too easy.
On December 03 2011 18:50 Megatronn wrote: The game is just over 1 year old, relax guys BW is still like 10 years older. Don't be impatient, it'll get to where everyone wants it to be in time.
Will it though? What I personally find to be frustrating is a player like Naniwa being capable of beating Nestea and MVP. No disrespect intended towards Naniwa, but it's annoying that in a straight up match without preparation the difference between the best two players in the world and someone who can't get past the first round of the Code A is only that small.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
Not sure if he is. First off, as mentioned, this game has been out for 1 and a half year + beta. Second, he's the only one raging about it. Even from shows like SotG and ItG I didn't hear these points. The game hasn't been figured out yet, so its premature to whine about imbalance. I think it's just a nerd rage and hardly think its this black/white.
Sure, he has a high level experience of the game, but he's not in the top, where people compensate losing to these lucky things by practicing more. A lot of the problems in this game can still be fixed with decent maps, which was one of the main factors in BW during the years of really small patch changes.
IMO its perfectly fine to criticize the game regardless of whether you are a pro or some random bronze player, but saying that HOTS will be crap cause it will make the game more random than it is and that huge AOE will play even bigger role is way too premature. Noone has even played the damn game yet and units may well change completely.
On December 03 2011 18:50 Megatronn wrote: The game is just over 1 year old, relax guys BW is still like 10 years older. Don't be impatient, it'll get to where everyone wants it to be in time.
The problem is that people here have long memories and know their history. If Dustin Browder truly did come from games like Dawn of War and the Command and Conquer series - and bringing that type of game and trying to mix everything together, the end result is no longer a SC game as we know it.
The prevailing thought is that the magic behind BW is just not powering SC2. It feels and plays like a completely different game from BW, sort of a hybrid between Warcraft 3...and something else.
So if you take that mindset into consideration...I can see why people are upset.
Anyways my view on "this game is too easy" line of thought. It is definitely too easy - until you try beating someone your equal or better. Then it's frustrating and difficult as hell. What are my chances of defeating a masters player and above? Probably nil, no matter what I do.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
Not sure if he is. First off, as mentioned, this game has been out for 1 and a half year + beta. Second, he's the only one raging about it. Even from shows like SotG and ItG I didn't hear these points. The game hasn't been figured out yet, so its premature to whine about imbalance. I think it's just a nerd rage and hardly think its this black/white.
Sure, he has a high level experience of the game, but he's not in the top, where people compensate losing to these lucky things by practicing more. A lot of the problems in this game can still be fixed with decent maps, which was one of the main factors in BW during the years of really small patch changes.
It doesn't matter. The concept is wrong and the ideas is wrong. It's simply straying away from the classic RTS genre. You can't fix that with maps.
They would have to give up on every single announced HoTS change for that game to be Starcraft in more than just the name. HoTS units have no place in Starcraft.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
Not sure if he is. First off, as mentioned, this game has been out for 1 and a half year + beta. Second, he's the only one raging about it. Even from shows like SotG and ItG I didn't hear these points. The game hasn't been figured out yet, so its premature to whine about imbalance. I think it's just a nerd rage and hardly think its this black/white.
Sure, he has a high level experience of the game, but he's not in the top, where people compensate losing to these lucky things by practicing more. A lot of the problems in this game can still be fixed with decent maps, which was one of the main factors in BW during the years of really small patch changes.
It doesn't matter. The concept is wrong and the ideas is wrong. It's simply straying away from the classic RTS genre. You can't fix that with maps.
They would have to give up on every single announced HoTS change for that game to be Starcraft in more than just the name. HoTS units have no place in Starcraft.
What changes would you say would fix the game? Or would you have more confidence in the SC2 BW custom map that's under development?
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
Not sure if he is. First off, as mentioned, this game has been out for 1 and a half year + beta. Second, he's the only one raging about it. Even from shows like SotG and ItG I didn't hear these points. The game hasn't been figured out yet, so its premature to whine about imbalance. I think it's just a nerd rage and hardly think its this black/white.
Sure, he has a high level experience of the game, but he's not in the top, where people compensate losing to these lucky things by practicing more. A lot of the problems in this game can still be fixed with decent maps, which was one of the main factors in BW during the years of really small patch changes.
It doesn't matter. The concept is wrong and the ideas is wrong. It's simply straying away from the classic RTS genre. You can't fix that with maps.
They would have to give up on every single announced HoTS change for that game to be Starcraft in more than just the name. HoTS units have no place in Starcraft.
What changes would you say would fix the game? Or would you have more confidence in the SC2 BW custom map that's under development?
I think the game is as good as it's going to get now without any changes (in terms of new units). It's not ideal, but at this point it still resembles Starcraft enough and it works fine.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
Core of RTS gameplay should be in SIMPLE units that just walk and shoot. HoTS completely deviates from that norm.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
then according to you broodwar units has wierd spells as well. Shredder = lurker, viper similar to defiler, warhound similar to goliath, etc. Of course there gonna be imbalance but everything can be balanced.
I don't see what's wrong with having more caster units, it's just adds more micro to the game and it's much more enjoyable to people to watch games.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
Core of RTS gameplay should be in SIMPLE units that just walk and shoot. HoTS completely deviates from that norm.
but wouldn't that fall into the "this game is too easy" trap that's already been complained about? If all caster-type units are outright removed, and all the units reduced to only move-and-shoot type units that are all produced from simple, non-gimmicky buildings, then the only true differentiation from the races would be just strictly mathematical differences.
Command and Conquer matches up with your description. No casters to speak of at all. Not sure about Dawn of War.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
Core of RTS gameplay should be in SIMPLE units that just walk and shoot. HoTS completely deviates from that norm.
but wouldn't that fall into the "this game is too easy" trap that's already been complained about? If all caster-type units are outright removed, and all the units reduced to only move-and-shoot type units that are all produced from simple, non-gimmicky buildings, then the only true differentiation from the races would be just strictly mathematical differences.
Command and Conquer matches up with your description. No casters to speak of at all. Not sure about Dawn of War.
Dawn of war has a ton of special abilities and spellcasters, especially the second one.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
then according to you broodwar units has wierd spells as well. Shredder = lurker, viper similar to defiler, warhound similar to goliath, etc. Of course there gonna be imbalance but everything can be balanced.
I don't see what's wrong with having more caster units, it's just adds more micro to the game and it's much more enjoyable to people to watch games.
Brood War had less of those units overall and they were simpler and relatively higher up in the tech tree.
And casters don't really add that much micro. The real micro in an RTS game is control over the basic units to minimize damage taken and maximize dps output. Spell control is really secondary, especially with SC2's smartcasting when you can just spam spells at will on a control group hotkey.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
Core of RTS gameplay should be in SIMPLE units that just walk and shoot. HoTS completely deviates from that norm.
but wouldn't that fall into the "this game is too easy" trap that's already been complained about? If all caster-type units are outright removed, and all the units reduced to only move-and-shoot type units that are all produced from simple, non-gimmicky buildings, then the only true differentiation from the races would be just strictly mathematical differences.
I don't think it is worth putting too much effort before the beta now on HotS, but I hope like the pros it won't be one more year of imbalance at least. I think now the game seems fairly balanced which it hasn't been in a long time.
It's pretty pointless right now for anyone to make judgement calls on HotS, progamers or not. You might say Browder has no experience with competitive RTS, but someone like Cloud also has no experience with game design. It works both ways. In fact, it's actually much easier for Browder to learn about competitive RTS gaming than for Cloud to learn about game design, just because there are so many VODs and shit lying around,
I guess the bottom line is that the game will be even more volotile with these added spellcasters and that the balance WOL has achieved will be reset to 0.
I can definantly see the frustration coming from a competititors point of view, he's actively trying to be the best he can be, but he's frustrated because the game is so volotile and random that its hard to motivate yourself.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
then according to you broodwar units has wierd spells as well. Shredder = lurker, viper similar to defiler, warhound similar to goliath, etc. Of course there gonna be imbalance but everything can be balanced.
I don't see what's wrong with having more caster units, it's just adds more micro to the game and it's much more enjoyable to people to watch games.
Brood War had less of those units overall and they were simpler and relatively higher up in the tech tree.
And casters don't really add that much micro. The real micro in an RTS game is control over the basic units to minimize damage taken and maximize dps output. Spell control is really secondary, especially with SC2's smartcasting when you can just spam spells at will on a control group hotkey.
On December 03 2011 19:02 Talin wrote: Cloud is spot on, at least someone is there to say it like it is.
if blizzard could release game and balance it nearly perfectly after a year I think it won't be a big problem to balance 8 new units.
The problem is that the new units are just not Starcraft units. They have weird spells and special abilities that are just going to create problems and push the game even more in the unit composition / timing / strategy direction, rather than the execution direction.
Core of RTS gameplay should be in SIMPLE units that just walk and shoot. HoTS completely deviates from that norm.
but wouldn't that fall into the "this game is too easy" trap that's already been complained about? If all caster-type units are outright removed, and all the units reduced to only move-and-shoot type units that are all produced from simple, non-gimmicky buildings, then the only true differentiation from the races would be just strictly mathematical differences.
Actually the opposite is true.
Let's take zerg attacking protoss or terran army, there isn't much micro to do, and with sc2's engine it's just not worth microing in huge battles apart from simple move command banelings to marines or magic boxing thors. So unit like viper would add a lot to the game, it requires well placed blinding cloud, then you can snipe any huge unit like tank/thor. This as well forces terran to reposition their army and be more careful with their large units. I can't see how this unit won't add a lot of depth to the game.
SC2 battles are so short and everything dies so fast that unit micro not that important, you better use that time to macro or harass (not to mention terran because they really have much to do in tvz).
I agree with the general idea of what Cloud and others are saying. In a way with how Browder and co. are designing the game or so it seems, it reminds me of how nowadays in youth sports and stuff everyone has to get a trophy and feel good even if they're terrible. Making it the game more luck based and lower skill ceiling to appeal to the masses that may just in general suck at it.
Even with long beta testing, adding 3 units for race and removing few will completely destroy balance in game for months, just look at WoL after almost 2 years of beta we got pretty good balance, but still there is patch every 3 months to fix something...
Im surprised that Blizzard add/remove so much units in HotS before Blizzcon I was sure that they will add 1 unit per race not more. It will be great from low level/casual player point of view because you will discover game from beginning, it will be very interesting from spectator point of view, because we will see how pros adapt and try new stuff. BUT from pro/semi-pro player perspective this will be relearning the game = no prize money for quite a while, and then LotV will came and they will do it again...
hey look, if u really love the game, u probably has to deal with the fact that blizzard will not stop from making expansion pack. so... hey cloud here's news for u, deal with it and QQ when it comes out for ur advantage, didnt u realized what idra did whole this time?
yeah? i will do that same gg gl hf oh... and im not even a pro ohhh and im a zerg player so i will qq even if u dont want me to
On December 03 2011 20:41 Newbistic wrote: It's pretty pointless right now for anyone to make judgement calls on HotS, progamers or not. You might say Browder has no experience with competitive RTS, but someone like Cloud also has no experience with game design. It works both ways. In fact, it's actually much easier for Browder to learn about competitive RTS gaming than for Cloud to learn about game design, just because there are so many VODs and shit lying around,
There is simply enormous differences in opinion as to what the game "should be". Easy to play, difficult to master. But yet we're seeing "no, the game should not be easy to play. We should not cater to noobs". It's just not gonna happen. The game is going to cater to the lowest common denominator, because that's what made WoW successful, right?
This reminds me of the "simple mode" option in one of the recent Capcom titles(was it MvC3?), where tossing a fireball was dumbed down to just pressing the fireball button. None of this complicated quarter-circle joystick motions required in Manual mode(and judged as the mode "real men" play on). The "simple mode" people would understandably be derided and looked down upon(but it should be noted that there were other features of the game not available to players who chose simple mode as well).
I do feel though that now would be the a good time for Browder and crew to just totally go back to the basics, simply asking themselves what SC is supposed to be. Just seems as though they're mixing and matching units concepts which, on their own are cool and new, but are mis-matching which races should get which units, and even the reasons why who's getting what.
IMO there should be more emphasis on making zerg feel a lot more swarmier(more 2 for 1 deals), protoss more high quality(expensive, but oh hell you get what you pay for), and terran something in the middle, but flawed duct-taped together human technology(remember how defensive matrix from BW was imperfect...it let 1 dmg in?). Something like that.
I keep trust in Blizzard myself. TFT Drastically improved RoC for WC3 back in the days. Blizzard has a good expansion record, and hopefully they'll keep it up.
So I'm a competitive BW noob, but did people never cheese in BW? The "better" player always won? I'm not getting this luck argument. Every sport has luck. I feel like we should just talk about specific balance or design issues(like some people in this theard are), not meaningless generalities like luck-based. The "best" team doesn't always win. Do you guys not watch sports?
dawn of war is all about micro, its designed in a way that macro is almost non existant, but there is still some macro there to make a difference between someone that understands resource management and someone that just micros. Still an really awesome game, i like it to train my multi tasking and micro x3. (it plays slower then sc2 because of the strong micro involved).
sc2 advanced mechanically, but at the same time made micro and macro more difficult and increased the game speed. So its on par with broodwar when it comes to difficult, though when comparing it to bw directly people will overlook what makes sc2 more difficult.
In HotS they do an blizzard style expansion (i call it mod, since what they change is they remove units, which is different from a standard blizzard expansion, though the overseer was imba :x ), they see whats missing and add it accordingly, and with this system they never failed. Because they will get rid of the easy modes for the races that way, making the game overall more balanced. The corsair is a good example of a super hard conter for just one unit, that made the game better. (but its also because the zerg super anti air conter does some awesome chasing around with the corsair, but voidray vs viking is even better chasing.)
knowing blizzard expansions, they won't make the game alot harder, but will get rid of easy modes and make each race more even and add diversity. Because there is no need to make a game harder, when even the best player hasn't even been able to scratch the ceiling. thats my personal opinion i know alot will disagree, but i haven't seen a player doing everything possible so far.
I agree with cloud that there are in general issues with the high dmg aoe and clumping aswell as having to take blind risks(in the case of the 6gate, I'd still say that's a problem of WG combined with ff).
I personally think it would be stupid for blizzard to start limiting the AI though. They just need to remove these stupid ass abilities and units such as ff, colossi, rauder, FG's snare(and perhaps nerf both BL's broodlings and viking's range), All make the game a lot more one dimensional. Also maybe redesign storm and aoe, so storm does same dmg(perhaps larger radius) over longer time and emp does similar. That way a terran army might be able to micro against the storm(rather than guess where the storms will be layed and send your units where you *think* the toss won't place them) and for terran he might be able to fight even though the toss got storms off. Similarly a toss doesn't auto loose if terran gets emps down on the temps and the toss army. + Show Spoiler +
I also have a lot of grievances with feedback, which isn't broken, but it just limits terran's options so much and is kind of used to balance the amount of options terran has compared to the few options toss has. I'd rather give toss more options...
Edit: Oops forgot WG, which *might* be balanced, but it offers horrible gameplay, where the toss gameplay mostly just relies on non-gw units to win battles and gw units to tank for them/protect them(ht is a bit of an exception, blizz 'balanced' them by making their core ability not useful until after 45 sec, to limit the effectiveness hts get from WG). So WG makes protoss tier 1-tier 1.5 units suck. well done blizz.
On December 03 2011 22:08 StuartLove wrote: cloud speaks about abusing and making decnt results? issent he the one who plays terra?
did you even read what he said? he mentionned terrans units as well as zerg/protoss units being ez to use and stuff.. stop QQing about terran being op this is bs "dude watch GSL, only terran winning so OP" right smartass
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
I think the majority of people agree that the game is pretty balanced at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that PvP is a coin flip...
Step 1: Complain about the direction of StarCraft II, making laughable comments that an expansion pack featuring units that will either fill intermediary roles (Warhound, Swarm Host) or completely change the outlook for how players compete (Replicant, Oracle) constitute a "gimmick". This leads people like me to believe that in the StarCraft II community, a gimmick is anything that increases complexity or deviates from the model established in Brood War. (See: Warcraft III and how players reacted to hero units, StarCraft II and any new game mechanic that did anything but recreate StarCraft: Brood War in 3D, the latter of which is every bit as responsible for the drop in the quality of the game as the corporate mismanagement at Blizzard Entertainment.)
Step 2: Refuse to give up StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and play StarCraft: Brood War or Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne in their fantastic multiplayer modes, or even go back and boot up Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness and Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and their incredible single-player modes. (At the same time, the players who do nothing but complain about Wings of Liberty will be appalled at my suggestion that Warcraft II is a superior game.) Instead, players will line up on the first day and purchase Heart of the Swarm. Professional players will continue to criticize the game but play it anyway, refusing to publicly state the only reason they play the game is because it is their source of revenue, since that would be bad for business. Much like wrestling fans who complain about the decline of that business and Simpsons fans who complain the show hasn't been relevant in a decade (but watch it anyway), the StarCraft II player base as a whole will continue to play the game despite the presence of superior real-time strategy games on the market and nearly fifty years of video games to fall back on. Instead, they will use their wallet and cast a vote of confidence in the lack of confidence they have with Blizzard Entertainment's game products.
On December 03 2011 21:40 Chytilova wrote: So I'm a competitive BW noob, but did people never cheese in BW? The "better" player always won? I'm not getting this luck argument. Every sport has luck. I feel like we should just talk about specific balance or design issues(like some people in this theard are), not meaningless generalities like luck-based. The "best" team doesn't always win. Do you guys not watch sports?
People who know BW can tear me apart now.
people cheesed in bw, but if they didn't kill someone with the cheese they lost 95% of the games. In sc2 its np due to mule, reactor, larva inject, cronoboost, wg etc
On December 03 2011 22:51 Sapphire.lux wrote: I agree with Cloud. I've said since BETA that there is to much focus on caster units that are super strong and easy to use.
The Zerg and Protoss units for HOTS are again, casters like units.
The colossus is also a big problem IMO. If any unit deserves to became a "noob" only one of a kind a-move unit this is the one.
Thanks for the interviews!
I'd say the zealot rather than the colossus, easy to do, easy to use. In BW u actually needed to micro your zealots so that they dont instantly die to 2 spiders mines. Micro... EDIT: missread, my bad :>
For me, one of the biggest problems is that everybody wants to play a different game. Since sc2 came out people have been talking about how the game should be and so many opinions are just striking with each other. So let me tell you this, the game wont ever become precisely the way you want it. Maybe focus a little on the stuff that you do like about the game.
As example, I dont like the warhound. It looks like a unit that you can hardly micro and it takes away Terrans only 300/200 unit in the game. But there will be a large group that loves it because they think it looks like a Goliath.
On December 03 2011 22:51 Sapphire.lux wrote: I agree with Cloud. I've said since BETA that there is to much focus on caster units that are super strong and easy to use.
The Zerg and Protoss units for HOTS are again, casters like units.
The colossus is also a big problem IMO. If any unit deserves to became a "noob" only one of a kind a-move unit this is the one.
Thanks for the interviews!
I'd say the zealot rather than the colossus, easy to do, easy to use. In BW u actually needed to micro your zealots so that they dont instantly die to 2 spiders mines. Micro...
Talking about HOTS, the battle Hellion should fix the "a move Zealot vs non stop kiting" relation.
On December 03 2011 21:40 Chytilova wrote: So I'm a competitive BW noob, but did people never cheese in BW? The "better" player always won? I'm not getting this luck argument. Every sport has luck. I feel like we should just talk about specific balance or design issues(like some people in this theard are), not meaningless generalities like luck-based. The "best" team doesn't always win. Do you guys not watch sports?
People who know BW can tear me apart now.
people cheesed in bw, but if they didn't kill someone with the cheese they lost 95% of the games. In sc2 its np due to mule, reactor, larva inject, cronoboost, wg etc
By that logic it would be best to cheese every game. No problem right?
There's a weird cycle here, where people complain about AoE, complain about a low skill ceiling, but refuse to spread their units during battles...which addresses both of those complaints. AoE in BW was a lot more scary than in SC2, the difference is that things didn't clump up as much before so you had less stuff getting hit by much stronger AoE.
Solve your problems. Spread your units. Stop complaining.
On December 03 2011 22:30 Zarahtra wrote:I personally think it would be stupid for blizzard to start limiting the AI though. They just need to remove these stupid ass abilities and units such as ff, colossi, rauder, FG's snare(and perhaps nerf both BL's broodlings and viking's range), All make the game a lot more one dimensional. Also maybe redesign storm and aoe, so storm does same dmg(perhaps larger radius) over longer time and emp does similar. That way a terran army might be able to micro against the storm(rather than guess where the storms will be layed and send your units where you *think* the toss won't place them) and for terran he might be able to fight even though the toss got storms off. Similarly a toss doesn't auto loose if terran gets emps down on the temps and the toss army. + Show Spoiler +
I also have a lot of grievances with feedback, which isn't broken, but it just limits terran's options so much and is kind of used to balance the amount of options terran has compared to the few options toss has. I'd rather give toss more options...
How about making Ghost's EMP like Disc Thrower's grenade from Tiberian Sun? It would bounce on the ground up to 3 times, each time releasing an EMP shockwave, although weaker with each succession. The ability would have 3 cast ranges, sort of: (a) close range - allowing for 3 shockwaves, (b) mid range - allowing for 2 shockwaves (the two weaker ones), and (c) long range - allowing for only 1 shockwave (the weakest one). The EMP grenades would bounce in a linear fashion, like Hellion's or Lurker's attack and they'd be projectiles, meaning you could either position your units is a way that reduces the EMP's effect or dodge the spell entirely. On top of that, in order to get the most out of their ability, Ghosts would have to fire their grenades at close range, which would require Cloak use, otherwise risking losing the Ghosts.
What do you think? ;p
On December 03 2011 23:16 Scribble wrote: There's a weird cycle here, where people complain about AoE, complain about a low skill ceiling, but refuse to spread their units during battles...which addresses both of those complaints. AoE in BW was a lot more scary than in SC2, the difference is that things didn't clump up as much before so you had less stuff getting hit by much stronger AoE.
Solve your problems. Spread your units. Stop complaining.
You can't keep your units spread while they move, though, can you?
On December 03 2011 23:16 Scribble wrote: There's a weird cycle here, where people complain about AoE, complain about a low skill ceiling, but refuse to spread their units during battles...which addresses both of those complaints. AoE in BW was a lot more scary than in SC2, the difference is that things didn't clump up as much before so you had less stuff getting hit by much stronger AoE.
Solve your problems. Spread your units. Stop complaining.
You had to individually select casters to use the spells. There was no FG, ConcG, FF bs that limited unit movement. Strong AOE units needed a lot of skill to be used (this made Terran hard to play, reaver drops difficult, etc). Because all this things are easy to do in SC2, good players can loose to bad ones very easy. They are adding more casters in HOTS...
The ball of death vs ball of death and "who can spam spells faster" is more WC3 the SC imo.
I completely agree with Cloud. In fact I agree with both Cloud and White-Ra. The expansion will be fun because the units are gimmicky and you can fool around with them and experiment. But in the long run when the units don't feel fresh anymore it will make it even worse. I was hoping the expansion would change the blob versus blob fights but in the TL interview Browder didn't really see the problem and said they won't make the AI 'worse'. I mean wtf marine blobs are rubbing their shoulders with each other and are going into a battle clumped together thinking they are spartans, zealots don't mind having the legs of a gigantic robot trambling on their heads...I looks really bad and it plays even worse.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I don't get it. Plague, emp, storm and reaver were in bw. And afaik, they're were much more powerful and super cool. But now they're gimmicky ?
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I don't get it. Plague, emp, storm and reaver were in bw. And afaik, they're were much more powerful and super cool. But now they're gimmicky ?
And it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyy yeahhhhh
You know, in BW carpet storm wasn't just 1 t click...
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I don't get it. Plague, emp, storm and reaver were in bw. And afaik, they're were much more powerful and super cool. But now they're gimmicky ?
And it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyy yeahhhhh
"afaik" .. thats the problematic part
reavers were powerful but its super hard to handle them, they are slow as fuck and therefore useless for attacking unless coupled with a shuttle, so it takes a lot of micro to do damage with them while making sure they wont get sniped. Colossus on the other hand: easy 1 a auto damage. EMP wasnt anywhere near as strong as in sc2, it was mainly used for its Mana-draining against arbiters (protoss flying caster) rather than its damage output (since in bw there werent 100 units in one small spot), and obviously science vessels werent as massable as ghosts. Plague is very powerful but you can only get it very late in the game (esp. compared to stuff like sc2 EMP and fungal), and there was no smart casting and defilers die very fast to irradiate. Storm is also very powerful in BW but you have to protect your HTs like theyre your babies or else you die.. and again, no smartcasting. Just as an explanation, I dont really agree with clouds pessimistic view of the game. happy birthday ^^
People should be able to discuss this without the bashing and behaving like dicks though, its not too hard.
On December 03 2011 21:40 Chytilova wrote: So I'm a competitive BW noob, but did people never cheese in BW? The "better" player always won? I'm not getting this luck argument. Every sport has luck. I feel like we should just talk about specific balance or design issues(like some people in this theard are), not meaningless generalities like luck-based. The "best" team doesn't always win. Do you guys not watch sports?
People who know BW can tear me apart now.
people cheesed in bw, but if they didn't kill someone with the cheese they lost 95% of the games. In sc2 its np due to mule, reactor, larva inject, cronoboost, wg etc
By that logic it would be best to cheese every game. No problem right?
if u know bw then u know what im talking about, if ur cheese fails, it should be GG, but it isn't GG in sc2. and i dont have to explain because if u dont understand then u shouldnt even be infront of an computer
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
I think the majority of people agree that the game is pretty balanced at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that PvP is a coin flip...
PvP is not a coin flip. I go phoenix every game and have about a 90 % winrate. It is all scouting and responding correctly. Every opening is good none get advantages over the other, other than an unscouted fast expo.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I don't get it. Plague, emp, storm and reaver were in bw. And afaik, they're were much more powerful and super cool. But now they're gimmicky ?
And it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyy yeahhhhh
"afaik" .. thats the problematic part
reavers were powerful but its super hard to handle them, they are slow as fuck and therefore useless for attacking unless coupled with a shuttle, so it takes a lot of micro to do damage with them while making sure they wont get sniped. Colossus on the other hand: easy 1 a auto damage. EMP wasnt anywhere near as strong as in sc2, it was mainly used for its Mana-draining against arbiters (protoss flying caster) rather than its damage output (since in bw there werent 100 units in one small spot), and obviously science vessels werent as massable as ghosts. Plague is very powerful but you can only get it very late in the game (esp. compared to stuff like sc2 EMP and fungal), and there was no smart casting and defilers die very fast to irradiate. Storm is also very powerful in BW but you have to protect your HTs like theyre your babies or else you die.. and again, no smartcasting. Just as an explanation, I dont really agree with clouds pessimistic view of the game. happy birthday ^^
People should be able to discuss this without the bashing and behaving like dicks though, its not too hard.
Thumbs up.
I just hope Blizzard finds a good way to deal with blanket spells. EMP's radius already got boned and I'm sure we'll see more of the same once the first expansion gets released.
I would honestly like to see some sort of penalty for selecting more than one unit with an ability, so players cannot arbitrarily spam one key. De-select/select clone. It's been brought up many times before. Maybe add a very short CD to all the units that were selected at the same time or have them all cast it on the same spot. A few more keystrokes wouldn't hurt.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
I think the majority of people agree that the game is pretty balanced at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that PvP is a coin flip...
PvP is not a coin flip. I go phoenix every game and have about a 90 % winrate. It is all scouting and responding correctly. Every opening is good none get advantages over the other, other than an unscouted fast expo.
Even pros still complain a lot about the coinflippiness of PvP (Hasu in his interview for NASL 2).
Going Phoenix is good until someone does a hardcore 4gate, or get faster Phoenix by playing greedy, or goes blind Blink Stalkers.
Plenty of builds in PvP get advantages over other builds.
White-ra made a good point that hadn't really struck me. Protoss need so insanely much gas and with all the new units, it's all the same. So in theory, the same gate comp should be as now but with diffrent "high tech units" that is traded with each other.
It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I don't get it. Plague, emp, storm and reaver were in bw. And afaik, they're were much more powerful and super cool. But now they're gimmicky ?
And it's my birthdayyyyyyyyyyyyyy yeahhhhh
"afaik" .. thats the problematic part
reavers were powerful but its super hard to handle them, they are slow as fuck and therefore useless for attacking unless coupled with a shuttle, so it takes a lot of micro to do damage with them while making sure they wont get sniped. Colossus on the other hand: easy 1 a auto damage. EMP wasnt anywhere near as strong as in sc2, it was mainly used for its Mana-draining against arbiters (protoss flying caster) rather than its damage output (since in bw there werent 100 units in one small spot), and obviously science vessels werent as massable as ghosts. Plague is very powerful but you can only get it very late in the game (esp. compared to stuff like sc2 EMP and fungal), and there was no smart casting and defilers die very fast to irradiate. Storm is also very powerful in BW but you have to protect your HTs like theyre your babies or else you die.. and again, no smartcasting. Just as an explanation, I dont really agree with clouds pessimistic view of the game. happy birthday ^^
People should be able to discuss this without the bashing and behaving like dicks though, its not too hard.
Thumbs up.
I just hope Blizzard finds a good way to deal with blanket spells. EMP's radius already got boned and I'm sure we'll see more of the same once the first expansion gets released.
I would honestly like to see some sort of penalty for selecting more than one unit with an ability, so players cannot arbitrarily spam one key. De-select/select clone. It's been brought up many times before. Maybe add a very short CD to all the units that were selected at the same time or have them all cast it on the same spot. A few more keystrokes wouldn't hurt.
I haven't seen blizzard trying to weaken an ability by makeing the interface worse and I am happy about that. The selection of a unit should not impact the unit.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
If you ask any pro who plays protoss they will tell how volatile the PvP match-up is (in BW, you'd hear similar arguments for ZvZ).
With that said, you lose sight of a guy's army for one second and you could be dead in SC2. That's just how it is. Scouting has never been more important.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
I think the majority of people agree that the game is pretty balanced at the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that PvP is a coin flip...
PvP is not a coin flip. I go phoenix every game and have about a 90 % winrate. It is all scouting and responding correctly. Every opening is good none get advantages over the other, other than an unscouted fast expo.
every PvP build that's not safe against 4 gate > every PvP build that's safe against 4 gate > 4 gate > every PvP build that's not safe against 4 gate
give me a call once you've solved that
funny how pessimistic Cloud has become...though I have to say, compared to BW it really does seem like HotS still won't bring enough stuff into the game with a high skill cap for great players to really differentiate themselves from the merely "good" ones
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
You're acting like Cloud and TT1 are the only pros dissapointed with the game. Plenty of pros have expressed their complaints and dissapointments. A lot of them have said they prefer BW, but because all of the money is in SC2 they have no choice but to play it.
Oh, and I would still give veteran players like Cloud's voice a lot more weight than yours.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Haha, SIGH!
Ok, first off I didn't say anything about my understanding of 'the intricacies'. That's irrelevant, I'm just pointing out the fact that the top players do well consistently (MLGs are proof of this).
I don't think I'm being condescending, either. I just don't appreciate when people reach for excuses that aren't necessarily fact. Regardless what of they say, statistics will prove otherwise. SC2 has come quite a long way. Blizzard said it themselves, they wouldn't change Wings of Liberty at all. I don't see "so many bad players getting decent results". Wins these days are earned or lost fairly, at least according to results.
On December 04 2011 02:13 StarStruck wrote: Excuse for losing? I beg your pardon?
If you ask any pro who plays protoss they will tell how volatile the PvP match-up is (in BW, you'd hear similar arguments for ZvZ).
With that said, you lose sight of a guy's army for one second and you could be dead in SC2. That's just how it is. Scouting has never been more important.
The real good one will always get a good winrate though, MC had a sick win rate in PvP when he was beasting it up, Jaedong was a beast in ZvZ etc. the best will almost always win regardless of match up.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
You're acting like Cloud and TT1 are the only pros dissapointed with the game. Plenty of pros have expressed their complaints and dissapointments. A lot of them have said they prefer BW, but because all of the money is in SC2 they have no choice but to play it.
They're losing and reaching for excuses, that's really all there is to it. What about prior to SC2, where was the money there? I see all these previous foreigner BW pros complaining about how they should be doing better than everyone else but I feel it's just a wake up call. As far as I can tell, there were only a handful of foreigners that were decent on the global level. What does that say about their skill in general? SC2 exploded and for a while it was a volatile game because people were figuring it out. Well, the top players seem to have figured it out and calling the game a coin flip now is purely just an excuse.
Oh, and I would still give veteran players like Cloud's voice a lot more weight than yours.
So? Just look at tournament results then, it contradicts the excuses these pros are throwing out really badly.
I would really like for someone to show me who and where these bad players are who are getting decent results!
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
On December 03 2011 16:19 Eluadyl wrote: I woulda thought no one could argue with cloud on his concerns, which are shared by far more people than this thread makes it look like.
In video games as a general rule, if something is more powerful, it's harder to pull off than less powerful ones. You can find a infinite amount of examples to this. However this is not the case in SC2. Everything has almost the same difficulty of execution. This means if you have something in your arsenal, you can mostly use it. When this something happens to counter what your opponent has to offer, you simply win.
TL,DR: If things were harder to execute, this would give the opponent room for reaction, which would leave more space for skill which makes Cloud right.
Yea this is so true... everything that was very strong in BW... defiler, HTs, reavers, mutas, were incredibly hard to use properly.
On the other hand, in SC2 we have very powerful units like banelings (just rolls into enemy), colossus (a-move) that barely take any more skill to use than any other units. Also, spellcasting across the board is of course is easier.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
In response to your comment about upsets
Jjakji deserved his wins
I think a lot of upsets happen because of the metagames at higher levels verses those of the mid-higher levels
something that works at mid-high will not work at high level because of that, a pro player may discount certain strategies and underprepare for them because of this, if someone executes one of those strategies perfectly, they can beat the better player
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
Huk is just one player, though. Upsets happen, and 99% of the time you can point out why the favorite lost. I'll admit, I haven't been following Huk too closely. Who has he lost to that is a no name?
On the larger scale, I still don't see it happening. Overall you'll see the players you expect to advance advancing to the later stages of tournaments. If the game were as volatile as you'd suggest, then Koreans wouldn't be so consistent in foreign tournaments.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Haha, SIGH!
Ok, first off I didn't say anything about my understanding of 'the intricacies'. That's irrelevant, I'm just pointing out the fact that the top players do well consistently (MLGs are proof of this).
I don't think I'm being condescending, either. I just don't appreciate when people reach for excuses that aren't necessarily fact. Regardless what of they say, statistics will prove otherwise. SC2 has come quite a long way. Blizzard said it themselves, they wouldn't change Wings of Liberty at all. I don't see "so many bad players getting decent results". Wins these days are earned or lost fairly, at least according to results.
If you fail at seeing players getting tournament placements they don't deserve according to their skill level and understanding of the game it doesn't mean people who actually have a clue can't do it. Just look at MLG Orlando and Dreamhack there's plenty of randomness in the final standings and plenty of well deserving top players losing in the groupstage or way too early. Also I don't need to make excuses to justify the fact I didn't win any major tournament (like anybody needs to excuse the fact they didn't win a major tournaments, cool story bro) because I know it's about how well and how much you practice and I never ever denied I could have practiced much more in the past. In the end the best players will get their championships if they play enough tournaments, but if you take a single event it barely represents who were the best players in that moment and who played better beause of the random aspects of SC2 I've described in this thread already. It really seems like SC2 conceptually resembles poker or magic way more than it does with SCBW.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
The only times I have seen a top pro lose to a no-name is in a PvP or ZvZ, which are by their nature more coin-flippy matchups than any of the others. Even that's pretty rare though, unless you can point some examples out for me.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
I think a lot of upsets happen because of the metagames at higher levels verses those of the mid-higher levels
something that works at mid-high will not work at high level because of that, a pro player may discount certain strategies and underprepare for them because of this, if someone executes one of those strategies perfectly, they can beat the better player
it is just a case of getting too greedy
You realize how contradicting that is. If something doesn't work at high level, then that's that. If something works at high level unless your opponent is effectively countering it, then that means it's a viable strategy, tactic or w/e.
Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
The only times I have seen a top pro lose to a no-name is in a PvP or ZvZ, which are by their nature more coin-flippy matchups than any of the others. Even that's pretty rare though, unless you can point some examples out for me.
You just gave me the examples. Even you admitting "which are by their nature more coin-flippy matchups than any of the others" is more than enough for me.
No matchup in this game should have to feel "coin-flippy".
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I've never played bw. I'm master sc2 player, and recently played sc2 bw maps and watched some pro league. Sc bw is so freaking superior to sc2, it's not even funny. I repeat: i'm not a bw fanboy, in fact i'm more a sc2 fanboy, but even the "sc2 bw" maps have so much better micro mechanics than sc2.
I agree with cloud. After watching in bw maps, how better sc2 could have been. Sc2 is an amazing game, but the mechanics and balance design is totally flawed.
On December 03 2011 10:10 MadJack wrote: tbh cloud is right, blizzard has released so many patch for this game already, youve got to realise how badly design the game is.
'Course, a year and a half after release, the expansion was already out for the original. Still, this argument is pretty nonsensical, Brood War was still releasing major balance patches three years after release.
Getting tired of hearing this bullshit, StarCraft 1 had four balance patches.
I think Bischu makes a great point. In BW, protoss' main econ harass options were storm drops, reaver drops and dark templars. None of those were dedicated "econ harass units" but they could still be incredibly effective at it used in the right hands. At the same time, they had many others roles in the game. In order to compensate for the lack of interesting and dynamic units, Blizzard is just adding a whole bunch of units and spells with the hopes that there will be a unit and spell out there to fill every role in the game. Protoss doesn't have good econ harass options? Let's add a specific spell for econ harass. Protoss has trouble dealing with mass mutas, let's add a unit that hard counters mass mutas. These problems were already present in SC2 to an extent, and now they're only compounding it further with HOTS. I really feel like Blizzard is showing no effort whatsoever to try and understand why BW was such a great game (I think it's obvious by now that they have no clue).
On December 04 2011 02:13 StarStruck wrote: Excuse for losing? I beg your pardon?
If you ask any pro who plays protoss they will tell how volatile the PvP match-up is (in BW, you'd hear similar arguments for ZvZ).
With that said, you lose sight of a guy's army for one second and you could be dead in SC2. That's just how it is. Scouting has never been more important.
ZvZ is arguably better in SC2. That was my impression after MLG Providence, especially the Idra/Nestea games. Let's not waste any time talking about what might be better about SC2 though.
Every time I see someone say "no, we don't want SC:BW 3D," they just end up saying they want SC2 to be more like BW, in any number of ways you can say it. Then the "remove MBS smart casting" request comes up. You know it's not going to happen. You know what makes you good, at least in your estimation, but you're a tiny minority.
Keep complaining if it makes you all feel better, but for all the pros that look down their noses, keep in mind you're the 1%, and in this case, you're not rich and powerful. Even then, pros still have more influence in balance, but 10,000 pros or wannabes buying HotS isn't going to fund the next game, and Blizzard will have totally failed to do their job, which is to make a game that sells. So again, MBS and smartcasting aren't going away.
One day people will find other ways to evaluate "good," and stop requiring old definitions to feel better about themselves. Hopefully, that doesn't actually come down to who executes the best 4 gate or 2 base roach/ling, or 2 port banshee. I'm not that enthused about the HotS units myself, but being completely negative and making remarks like Cloud only serve to stir up this lovely old debate. In the future, hopefully I"ll stick to places like SotG where they at least attempt to discuss it in a somewhat professional manner. Sometimes in life, you have to leave your feelings at the door and act grown up in public. I'm sure it's tough for so many young pro gamers to realize this, but if you want to be taken seriously, act like an adult.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
In response to the "closed system" comment: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233991 The most recent OSL had Pro-Am qualifiers (i.e: "no-names" were trying to qualify along with those with their licenses). Every single no-name got thrashed 2-0 in the first round by (for the most part) relatively unspectacular pros. And it's not like they prepared to face these particular players, they just simply outplayed them overall. You have cases where the better player overcomes tremendous disadvantages or build order losses through smart play and squeezing every inch out of every unit. Also, in Winner's League, you can't prepare for any particular player, yet the "All-Kill" phenomenon happens a lot every season of it.
In general, I'd be inclined to agree that spellcasting is way too powerful in SC2 - everything just melts because of the natural clumping. It also means that it is that much harder to scrape together a miraculous comeback (though, they still do happen) against an opponent, even the weaker ones. I'm going to wait for HotS beta to comment more on the new units - they're still untested and subject to huge changes - which will happen if the new abilities are as gamebreaking as people are assuming.
When watching the TL interview with Dustin Browder and he said "This is SC2 not Broodwar", and that people should go play Broodwar if that's what they want, because it's still a great game; I realised he would just never get it. Trying to make a competitive RTS like SC2 while ignoring BW, is like trying to develop a scientific theory while ignoring the works of Newton and Einstein.. you're discarding years of solid fundamentals by deciding to go it alone instead, for no reason except perhaps pride. We don't want logical science, we want fun science!
Check out the disaster which is the PvP match up, a result of discarding the tenet of "defenders advantage" in thename of gimmicks, to see where this philosophy ends up.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Do you really believe in what you say? Did you ever hear Day9 say ANYTHING negatively about a player or the game? No, because he makes his living out of it. He wants Sc2 to be as much appreciated as possible, to get as much exposure, and to shine in the best light. That's understandable from his point, or from pretty much every caster out there. But that doesn't mean because he says "X is fine, we don't know about Y" etc. means it's actually fine. The only thing it does is shoving problems aside without actually discussing / solving them. So he has as much reason to be as biased as the players, but it doesn't effect him the same as the players. It doesn't matter to him if ZvZ is coin-flippy, because he isn't affected. He still flys to tournaments to cast ZvZ, regardless if the better player advances or not. He couldn't care less (i don't say he does), he just wants as many people to tune in and as many sponsors to jump aboard as possible, and to increase his market value.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Day9 did not comment on the issue because he did not want to alienate a portion of his fanbase. That is why he has always taken a very very neutral stance on issues, because he knows all sides of the spectrum look up to him. Not because he is some super genius or something. (Although he is very smart in keeping bias down and appealing to everyone.)
looking at how the game is still changing, i think cloud and merz have a valid argument. you can't just look at the game fresh after a balance patch and say everything is dandy. several builds and mechanics have been getting tuned since release. for example, blizzard will continue to adjust warpins into hots and has been making changes to warpins (research, cd, pylon radius) since sc2's release. these changes seem to come about because of the abusiveness of warpins in the early game. even with 4gate as a PvP build, they seek to change warpin, which says to me they aren't looking at the mechanic only from a balance pov but also from a design pov (maybe they see the mirror matchup as too fragile in the presence of allin BOs atm).
Firstly, thank you for compiling these interviews. This is the kind of freelance journalism that makes the StarCraft community so good.
Now on to the interviews. I think iNcontroL is incredibly intelligent. I love what he's doing for eSports, and I love how passionate he is. I don't understand Cloud. Is he saying that HotS won't be balanced, or that StarCraft II in general can't be balanced. He just seems super cynical about the whole eSports community. I think WhiteRa has a point-- Protoss, traditionally, is the the gas-gobbling race. I think there needs to be another mineral heavy unit for them.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
In response to the "closed system" comment: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233991 The most recent OSL had Pro-Am qualifiers (i.e: "no-names" were trying to qualify along with those with their licenses). Every single no-name got thrashed 2-0 in the first round by (for the most part) relatively unspectacular pros. And it's not like they prepared to face these particular players, they just simply outplayed them overall. You have cases where the better player overcomes tremendous disadvantages or build order losses through smart play and squeezing every inch out of every unit. Also, in Winner's League, you can't prepare for any particular player, yet the "All-Kill" phenomenon happens a lot every season of it.
In general, I'd be inclined to agree that spellcasting is way too powerful in SC2 - everything just melts because of the natural clumping. It also means that it is that much harder to scrape together a miraculous comeback (though, they still do happen) against an opponent, even the weaker ones. I'm going to wait for HotS beta to comment more on the new units - they're still untested and subject to huge changes - which will happen if the new abilities are as gamebreaking as people are assuming.
And this isn't the same as any open bracket tournament? Did you not see the Koreans trash all the random masters+ players at MLG providence?
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
The funny thing about that merz is HuK is one of the more consistent foreigners
cloud, outside of the bullshit in threads like this on tealmliquid. you are a well respected progamer to the fans who truely follow the game. your thoughts and ideas are very well respected and you have shown to have a great mind for balance and gameplay. i still remember your interview from ages and ages ago where you were even suggesting huge nerfs to your own race(ie banshee 3 shotting workers etc)
almost every post that has been negative towards you reads like a 12 year old and it makes me sad. its great to hear you are practicing more then ever and keep up your no bullshit stance on things. unlike idra who is really just playing up his persona 100x to keep his brand growing you sir are a genuine unapologetic sc2 player who speaks his mind.
good day sir and fuck the window licking mouth breathers who think they know a god damn thing about this game outside of what they have been told by either day9 or their favourite progamer. people like idra and day9 shape the discourse on balance and gameplay more then most would think and more then they should. it also creates this unhealthy rhetoric on forums that just reads bullshit.
and to every idiot who replies to cloud with "lol just because you havent won any tournamentsgo cry in a corner baby" i hope a fridge falls on you.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
Firstly, I can't be sure exactly what your point is in this post. I have interpreted it as the following:
1. Casters (such as Day9) do not call other players bad because the people watching them will no like the casters less if they do. Since a caster's income is based on the number of people watching him, there is no motivation to tell the truth about bad players. 2. Players don't usually speak their minds because they want to have positive reputations and good public images which will help them be more successful commercially.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. That's absolutely nothing compared to today. And there weren't commercials then either. I am extremely disappointed that you would suggest, even subtly imply that Day9 pulls punches because he's motivated by money. Day9 may pull punches, but it is NOT because he wants more money. If he does, it's because he admires people trying to make a profession out of what they love to do, and it's because he wants to show them the respect they deserve. This is an admiration and a respect you seem to have lost for your peers. Day9 is NOT motivated by money-- he is motivated by passion and by a desire to do what he loves.
Additionally, there are plenty of successful casters who don't pull punches. Tastosis regularly says that one player is absurdly worse than his opponent.
2. This assertion is a much more fair assessment of the professional scene, but I challenge whole-heartedly the negative connotation you give to this. It is good that players want a good public image. It's good that players care about how the public feels about their image-- if people like professional players, then they are more likely to watch tournaments and get involved with the scene. The more people in eSports, the more money in eSports, and there will be more people in eSports if players manage their public image well.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
The funny thing about that merz is HuK is one of the more consistent foreigners
Amen my brother in arms.
There are so many variables in SC2 its kinda pointless to see a favorite lose to an unknown and say its due to nature of SC2. You'd have to look at each game and see what mistakes the better player did. You take HuK as an example and its sometimes really visible that he played below his potential due to jetlag/exhaustion etc. He is the first to tell you he played really bad some events.
Its not the games fault if you see your favorite player doing really bad strategical mistakes, even if he had the scouting knowledge to do better decisions. On top of that I think everyone agrees that SC2 is a lot more unforgiving on micro, if you lack attention for 2 seconds you can lose your whole army (for example Idra's mutalisks against Sjow on recent MLG). But that in itself is not randomness or coin-flippiness of the game, but instead of having to macro perfect in BW you need to be perfectly situation aware in SC2.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers.
So Day9 is the perfect human being? Our world is ruled by sex and money, and I doubt that the first one is really important in sc2 atm.
On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote: The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
I have no problem with IdrA's honesty, only the fact he doesn't win a quarter of the tournaments necessary to be the guy who smashes keyboards and no-shows consolation matches. And if you guys want to insinuate that Day9 didn't want to take a stance on the issue because it costs him money, I'd have to see something in-writing that corroborates it. Yes, he's not going to be the guy who comes out and criticizes Blizzard for the de-facto control of the StarCraft II scene that they've created with Battle.net 2.0 and their army of lawyers. And honestly, I wouldn't expect him to do that.
Potential cheerleading aside, what I see when I look at Day9 is one of the few StarCraft players in the community that shares similarities with Seth Killian and David Sirlin, two guys whose pro gaming accolades were built by a fighting game scene that spends months and years looking for ways to defeat imbalances. And consequently, I consider the writing of David Sirlin and Seth Killian to be some of the most valuable out there on the topic of competitive video games. Whether it's a mere persona that Day9 puts on for the purpose of selling his Dailies (and absolutely nothing suggests to me that it is), that persona is the right attitude. Fighting game players accept that "imbalance" is relative to the metagame (where underpowered and weak strategies and characters may someday become mid-and-high-tier characters) and don't complain about it. If the character is too weak, they change the character. And if they find out that imbalance makes the game no fun to play, they play a different video game, which is something the real-time strategy community (built on the idea that players can complain to the developer and they'll put out a balance patch) doesn't seem able to figure out.
The reason I brought up Day9's StarCraft expertise is that every single time I watch any other competitive StarCraft player speak, they cannot fathom the game in any terms that do not invoke the names of StarCraft units, buildings, build orders, or races. They cannot discuss StarCraft without placing themselves in a tight bubble and invoking the game mechanics as they apply to StarCraft: Brood War or StarCraft II and nothing else. Theory gets people places. Hypotheticals such as "The Replicant is a gimmick and it shouldn't be a part of StarCraft because it's not StarCraft-y", for instance, does not get people anywhere because it does not account for the future of the metagame and the future of game balance. And most importantly, it does not speak for whether or not it will make the game more fun to play. The chief goal of the game is to be fun, not to protect the salaries of players or a company advertising model that says "Hey, look at our game! Our game is played in arenas! For money! Buy our game!"
The inability of Dustin Browder and Blizzard Entertainment to cater to a group of players who can only think within that bubble has resulted in the issues that now plague the game. Everybody knew that when multiple-building selection was removed, something had to be added back into the game. Larger maps, more complex strategy, more units. And every single suggestion that would have made the game more complex has been shut down by the community because "It's not StarCraft". And because of it, you have ended up with a stripped-down version of StarCraft: Brood War that lacks the incredible mechanical dexterity that defined StarCraft: Brood War. That's what has this game in the mess it's in to begin with. And if StarCraft II is not good enough to be played competitively, then you do what the competitive fighting game community does: Play a different game.
Those players don't continue to whine about it. They grind down and play the game and deal with it. You can go do what Leenock is doing. Instead of complaining, he's taking on the fucking world at the age of sixteen and kicking the shit out of just about everything and everyone who gets in the way. He is the future of StarCraft II, as is Jjakji, the guy who beat Leenock in a GSL final at the age of seventeen. And if you think the reason you haven't won twenty-seven-straight GSLs is because "the game is too volatile" (despite the fact that the Koreans still dominate every single tournament and still tear the West into ribbons, just as they did in Brood War), I'll be blunt: Go home, forfeit the money, and go play the game on your off time. Play the game when it is enjoyable to you. Or, even better, go play Brood War with the five-hundred remaining Koreans on ICCUP. I know it's stressful to play StarCraft eight-to-ten hours a day and do it because it's your job, but I don't tolerate players who constantly bitch and complain about a video game and continue to play it anyway, because eventually, people are going to think this is the foundation that TeamLiquid.net has been built upon. The world of difference between the fighting game and real-time strategy communities is inconceivable and I'm starting to get sick of it. So I ask you:
On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote: If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2.
What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
Firstly, I can't be sure exactly what your point is in this post. I have interpreted it as the following:
1. Casters (such as Day9) do not call other players bad because the people watching them will no like the casters less if they do. Since a caster's income is based on the number of people watching him, there is no motivation to tell the truth about bad players. 2. Players don't usually speak their minds because they want to have positive reputations and good public images which will help them be more successful commercially.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. That's absolutely nothing compared to today. And there weren't commercials then either. I am extremely disappointed that you would suggest, even subtly imply that Day9 pulls punches because he's motivated by money. Day9 may pull punches, but it is NOT because he wants more money. If he does, it's because he admires people trying to make a profession out of what they love to do, and it's because he wants to show them the respect they deserve. This is an admiration and a respect you seem to have lost for your peers. Day9 is NOT motivated by money-- he is motivated by passion and by a desire to do what he loves.
Additionally, there are plenty of successful casters who don't pull punches. Tastosis regularly says that one player is absurdly worse than his opponent.
2. This assertion is a much more fair assessment of the professional scene, but I challenge whole-heartedly the negative connotation you give to this. It is good that players want a good public image. It's good that players care about how the public feels about their image-- if people like professional players, then they are more likely to watch tournaments and get involved with the scene. The more people in eSports, the more money in eSports, and there will be more people in eSports if players manage their public image well.
Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers.
So Day9 is the perfect human being? Our world is ruled by sex and money, and I doubt that the first one is really important in sc2 atm.
Did I ever say that Day9 was a perfect human being? No. In a cruel world, and in a hostile environment men are dogs-- and it is a world where the dog eats the dog. I am sure that Sean Plott has his vices-- his problems and his trials and tribulations-- but inside the StarCraft community, inside this haven of entertainment and passion-- Day9 is a perfect voice for the community. With regards to StarCraft, Day9 is exactly what the community should represent and reflect-- he is perfection in StarCraft-- maybe not as a player, but as a contributor.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
Firstly, I can't be sure exactly what your point is in this post. I have interpreted it as the following:
1. Casters (such as Day9) do not call other players bad because the people watching them will no like the casters less if they do. Since a caster's income is based on the number of people watching him, there is no motivation to tell the truth about bad players. 2. Players don't usually speak their minds because they want to have positive reputations and good public images which will help them be more successful commercially.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. That's absolutely nothing compared to today. And there weren't commercials then either. I am extremely disappointed that you would suggest, even subtly imply that Day9 pulls punches because he's motivated by money. Day9 may pull punches, but it is NOT because he wants more money. If he does, it's because he admires people trying to make a profession out of what they love to do, and it's because he wants to show them the respect they deserve. This is an admiration and a respect you seem to have lost for your peers. Day9 is NOT motivated by money-- he is motivated by passion and by a desire to do what he loves.
Additionally, there are plenty of successful casters who don't pull punches. Tastosis regularly says that one player is absurdly worse than his opponent.
2. This assertion is a much more fair assessment of the professional scene, but I challenge whole-heartedly the negative connotation you give to this. It is good that players want a good public image. It's good that players care about how the public feels about their image-- if people like professional players, then they are more likely to watch tournaments and get involved with the scene. The more people in eSports, the more money in eSports, and there will be more people in eSports if players manage their public image well.
Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
If you are talking about other casters, then don't mention Day9 by name. You are unfairly calling him out on something he doesn't do, and you're trying to use HIS image to fuel your cynical tirade against eSports. If you mean other casters, say "Casters" not "]Day9 and other casters"
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
Regurgitation, awesome!
Players like HuK and IdrA (who make appearances at most majors) should be used to the travel schedule by now. There are some things you can control and some things you cannot. Those are minor excuses. Jet-lag is nothing more than an overused cop-out in most cases. You will get sick regardless if you don't take the proper precautions. With that said, we're seeing more and more players who travel around a lot flying out a few days to a week prior. A few days is more than enough.
As for your spiel about tournament formats. Um, no? When it comes to preparation, BW players have to prepare more because of the competition level. If you make it on the A-team you've already proven your worth. The amount of preparation they have to do before each match is tenfold especially with the new format. We only see the best of the best. Look into the death stare. Tell me what you see?
Sure, their practice is more focused because they only have one map in PL, but they give it their all. The amount of preparation that goes into individual leagues is just as rough as well. Traveling has nothing to do with BW. We're talking about the overall design of the game man and let's face it. There are plenty of things Blizzard can do to make it better.
GSL is no different from the BW leagues-- the same fucking principles apply and guess what? The GSL is living proof that the game is volatile and this won't change anytime soon.
With that said, there are still major flaws in the game design.
BTW Cloud is spot on about Sean. Promoting the game has become his job and you will always see him take a step back before he answers any touchy subject. Not the first time I say this either. Sean's a master at self-editing himself. It's smart on his part to take all the time in the world to construct his answers to such controversial things.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
Go back and read what I wrote. Don't skip to the bottom of the post and ignore everything else I had to say.
You asked a question and I kindly answered. The rest of that post is just bs and I will also give you a tip: if you want to be taken seriously don't tell people what to do and don't bold words randomly when you write your stuff.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers.
So Day9 is the perfect human being? Our world is ruled by sex and money, and I doubt that the first one is really important in sc2 atm.
Did I ever say that Day9 was a perfect human being? No. In a cruel world, and in a hostile environment men are dogs-- and it is a world where the dog eats the dog. I am sure that Sean Plott has his vices-- his problems and his trials and tribulations-- but inside the StarCraft community, inside this haven of entertainment and passion-- Day9 is a perfect voice for the community. With regards to StarCraft, Day9 is exactly what the community should represent and reflect-- he is perfection in StarCraft-- maybe not as a player, but as a contributor.
What Day9 does with Starcraft 2 is making a living of it, making a living of his passion which is great. But that doesn't mean that you have to think twice about what you do when it's related to your fragile income. He might say exactly what he's thinking (I hope not, sometimes it's just hilarious to see him being excited about trivial stuff) but that would be rare exception; a perfect human being in this regard
On December 04 2011 04:41 StarStruck wrote: BTW Cloud is spot on about Sean. Promoting the game has become his job and you will always see him take a step back before he answers any touchy subject. Not the first time I say this either. Sean's a master at self-editing himself. It's smart on his part to take all the time in the world to construct his answers to such controversial things.
Too bad "Sean Plott carefully chooses his words in order to protect his paycheck" has absolutely no bearing on the issue of whether or not video game skill denotes the ability to understand and articulate issues in game design, a question that everyone seems terrified to answer.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
Go back and read what I wrote. Don't skip to the bottom of the post and ignore everything else I had to say.
You asked a question and I kindly answered. The rest of that post is just bs and I will also give you a tip: if you want to be taken seriously don't tell people what to do and don't bold words randomly when you write your stuff.
You're fucking hopeless. I'll go waste my words on my cat and at least he'll cluelessly purr and nuzzle my hand, which is more productive than anything you've done in this thread.
God, eight-to-ten hours a day of StarCraft and all you can do is pull out the "LOL U BOLD WORDS UR STOOPID" card. Get a grip. This is why I don't take the StarCraft opinion of someone seriously just because they're good at the game.
Personally I dislike the Terran vs Protoss match up as it requires stutter stepping from the Terran to stand a chance in most battles, hopefully the new units will change this.
LOL
Guy wants to a+move versus Protoss just like he does versus Zerg? Is that right? No more micro? As if one needed to stutter step after a EMP shower xD LOLOLOLOL
It seems to me that WhiteRa's and Cloud's opinions are the most down-the-earth ones: Heart of the Swarm, as it is at the moment, will be a crappy expansion. I don't think it will be worth buying that thing for at least 6 months, when the most obvious imbalance problems will have been attended.
As a Protoss player, I have no expectations regarding this expansion, since the announced Protoss units are shit. I mean, you give Protoss a unit for harassment that does not kill anything. Then you give Protoss something to deal with Mass Mutas that needs 3 bases (LOL!) and then you give a unit that is made for CLONING ENEMY UNITS, but that CAN'T CLONE MASSIVE UNITS. I mean, if I wanted Zerg or Terran units, I would fucking play Zerg or Terran. What the fuck is Blizzard thinking, really? Even pro players are worried about what is to become of Starcraft 2, why shouldn't we be?
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
Go back and read what I wrote. Don't skip to the bottom of the post and ignore everything else I had to say.
You asked a question and I kindly answered. The rest of that post is just bs and I will also give you a tip: if you want to be taken seriously don't tell people what to do and don't bold words randomly when you write your stuff.
You're fucking hopeless. I'll go waste my words on my cat and at least he'll cluelessly purr and nuzzle my hand, which is more productive than anything you've done in this thread.
God, eight-to-ten hours a day of StarCraft and all you can do is pull out the "LOL U BOLD WORDS UR STOOPID" card. Get a grip. This is why I don't take the StarCraft opinion of someone seriously just because they're good at the game.
he actually gave a spot on answer dude... he's not just playing a videogame here, its his job...
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: Fighting game players accept that "imbalance" is relative to the metagame (where underpowered and weak strategies and characters may someday become mid-and-high-tier characters) and don't complain about it. If the character is too weak, they change the character. And if they find out that imbalance makes the game no fun to play, they play a different video game, which is something the real-time strategy community (built on the idea that players can complain to the developer and they'll put out a balance patch) doesn't seem able to figure out.
But at the same time there's nothing wrong with complaining is there - I mean Blizzard does listen to complaints, and the patches are really based on the feedback of its users, which could be seen as complaints. You can complain but also continue to play and enjoy the game as much as one can at the same time! I hope I didn't misunderstand you
Personally I dislike the Terran vs Protoss match up as it requires stutter stepping from the Terran to stand a chance in most battles, hopefully the new units will change this.
LOL
Guy wants to a+move versus Protoss just like he does versus Zerg? Is that right? No more micro? As if one needed to stutter step after a EMP shower xD LOLOLOLOL
I'm pretty sure he wants wants mech TvP similar to BW which is actually good and you know isn't just herp derp 2 balls skirting eachother and one battle decides everything.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
Regurgitation, awesome!
Players like HuK and IdrA (who make appearances at most majors) should be used to the travel schedule by now. There are some things you can control and some things you cannot. Those are minor excuses. Jet-lag is nothing more than an overused cop-out in most cases. You will get sick regardless if you don't take the proper precautions. With that said, we're seeing more and more players who travel around a lot flying out a few days to a week prior. A few days is more than enough.
As for your spiel about tournament formats. Um, no? When it comes to preparation, BW players have to prepare more because of the competition level. If you make it on the A-team you've already proven your worth. The amount of preparation they have to do before each match is tenfold especially with the new format. We only see the best of the best. Look into the death stare. Tell me what you see?
Sure, their practice is more focused because they only have one map in PL, but they give it their all. The amount of preparation that goes into individual leagues is just as rough as well. Traveling has nothing to do with BW. We're talking about the overall design of the game man and let's face it. There are plenty of things Blizzard can do to make it better.
GSL is no different from the BW leagues-- the same fucking principles apply and guess what? The GSL is living proof that the game is volatile and this won't change anytime soon.
With that said, there are still major flaws in the game design.
BTW Cloud is spot on about Sean. Promoting the game has become his job and you will always see him take a step back before he answers any touchy subject. Not the first time I say this either. Sean's a master at self-editing himself. It's smart on his part to take all the time in the world to construct his answers to such controversial things.
Traveling is still something they have to deal with more than 'lesser' players it influences your performance. And as we all know in a game of starcraft mere seconds can decide whether you win or lose. So yes even if the effects aren't massive it can still cause a loss.
And practising for a specific opponent obviously decreases volatility, you will almost never get a player whose playstyle you don't know at all and you won't be against a player that could have specifically just prepared for you while you don't even know him that just doesn't happen in BW because it's a lot more closed. You don't have open brackets etc. If you would put the top 32 players of sc2 in a league together and let them prepare for each match you bet the better player would more frequently come out on top.
The GSL has a very different format though with code A and Code B, and it has new talents come out every time, not just lesser players that beat mvp once and then got knocked out ( those are there too ) but a lot of the volatility comes from that.
I agree the game isn't perfect but to say they're major flaws in game design is just overreacting, if it actually had so many design flaws it wouldn't have 100k viewers every big tournament.
Ima go off now though so if you want to respond pm.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
Sorry ClouD I like your "I say what I think attitude" and I respect you but you say that this game is random and luck based and then you say you like to compete? So you like the rock, paper, scissor kind of competition? Sorry but if I think that a game is luck based I simply don't play it in a competitive way. If you say that you like all the other stuff I can agree but not on this point. And sorry for my english I would like to post this in italian but here I can't lol. I hope you and the other guys understand my point.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
I've played a few RTS games. In my opinion, SC2 is a not a great RTS, but it's solid. The only reason I play it as much as I do is because the bustling community. If the community shrinks to the level BW was at for about 8 years, give or take, I'll start RTS hopping from the SC2 expansion, to AOE, to WC4, and to a few of the cooler indie ones as well.
Trust nobody when money is involved ;p. If you could make well over six figures a year, and thousands for a WEEKEND, what lies would you tell!
I hate the absolutism and the tribal nature of discussions on SC2 as it stands mechanically. I have never even played BW beyond the campaign and BGH games, followed the scene quite late-on but it is clearly a better spectacle and generally the better player usually wins. I like both games, and don't see why some SC2-specific fans can't look at incorporating mechanical changes to make the game... gasp.. BETTER?!
SC2 is a great game to play, and there IS strategic depth in it. However some of the mechanics are just a bit too easy to execute. Clumping has a few problems. Firstly it makes the game far too reliant on AoE units, secondly the likes of bio balls form a kind of defensive formation that automatically reduce their surface area against melee units. Zealots used to be truly terrifying, now they are merely quite scary if they have upgrades/charge/archon support.
WG is a problem, Protoss needs to be balanced around it. It negates defenders advantage to an extent, so Protoss all-ins can be a nightmare both to scout and defend properly. Conversely Protoss gateway units are terribly cost inefficient, the flipside being that their tech units are good (namely the collosus).
Another problem following on from this is that the tech units become game-defining. If the Terran has sufficient vikings to wipe your collosi out, but hasn't over-made them, he'll stomp you in the engagement. If the Terran doesn't have enough vikings and supplies are roughly even, he's going to get creamed.
This is complicated further with the ghost/templar battles as well, but it's a basic pattern that is observed in most matchups: Blobs of core units vs another blob of core units with a few 'tech' units and a few hard-counter units. The battles often aren't decided on positioning or micro, but as to who has the better ratio of tech/counter units.
People say things like 'spread' your units. I pre-emptively spread all my stuff all the time, have separate control groups and all that good stuff. The second I go 1a2a3a, they all CLUMP UP, immediately.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
Guys, remember how things were introduced in the alpha? then changed heaps in the beta? then the game got released and it changed even more? The given information about HOTS is not definite , it will most likely to change hence there isn't really a point in arguing about HOTS balance.
What worries me is that Starcraft 2 is being very balanced with the latest patch looking at many recent tournaments and is finally becoming a solid e-sports game. The introduction of HOTS and how Blizzard needs to balance again worries me. Not a fan of DK really but yea
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
I answered above to the exact same question. And honestly the source of my complaint is not the fact I don't like SC2. I think SC2 is a great game better than most RTS out there hands down. Problem is SCBW was just on another level and what makes me sad is that SC2 is just a huge delusion compared to its predecessor. This expansion is not going to make things better and that's why my opinion is negative. If there was no SCBW in the first place as a term of comparison I am pretty sure everybody would love SC2 even more.
On December 03 2011 06:46 Grumbels wrote: I wonder why there aren't any new updates on HotS. Blizzcon is like 6 weeks ago now, so they have gone through an entire new set of iterations for the new units and such. I wish they would have updates every time they did some relevant change.
pretty simply, blizzcon is the place where they show how far they are, other then that they don't show off every single change, they show things if they are almost finished, which is now done by doing beta testing. So there won't be alot of informations about it until the next blizzcon. You shouldn't be spoiled from the indie devs, that will tease out any change they make. Otherwise there would also be no reason to make a blizzcon at all.
I actually think that Blizzcon is like a deadline for the design team to cram up something to show people. any thing we seen from the blizzcon can be scrapped or made huge change in their finalized form.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
I answered above to the exact same question. And honestly the source of my complaint is not the fact I don't like SC2. I think SC2 is a great game better than most RTS out there hands down. Problem is SCBW was just on another level and what makes me sad is that SC2 is just a huge delusion compared to its predecessor.
I completely disagree with you, but that's a different topic. But even if this assertion has merit, what makes you think HotS will be "a huge delusion" compared to BW?
On December 04 2011 05:05 -_- wrote: Trust nobody when money is involved ;p. If you could make well over six figures a year, and thousands for a WEEKEND, what lies would you tell!
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
Not being satisfied about the current state of the game means you should quit? Everyone of us wants this game to be as perfect as it can be. The game is still not an entire coinflip, it's just pretty volatile at the moment. I don't think there's any progamer out there that feels the game is right where it needs to be, but we've seen improvements and it's still a great game. But when we see something that's wrong with it we should be able to complain, no?
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
I answered above to the exact same question. And honestly the source of my complaint is not the fact I don't like SC2. I think SC2 is a great game better than most RTS out there hands down. Problem is SCBW was just on another level and what makes me sad is that SC2 is just a huge delusion compared to its predecessor. This expansion is not going to make things better and that's why my opinion is negative. If there was no SCBW in the first place as a term of comparison I am pretty sure everybody would love SC2 even more.
Being a Korean and grew up watching BW. I agree with you, the thing that made BW an awesome game is that game developers didn't make units for a specific purpose (like Oracle = harrase). Players could change the units completely and they did something that Blizzard never expected and intended (this can be seen from many interviews). However there will be another expansion and we never know how they will fix HOTS, and maybe in 10 years time like BW - SC2 maybe could replace BW totally
At this point I'd almost rather have blizzard spend Heart of the Swarm changing design issues (unit clumping, warpgate, etc.) and save Legacy of the Void to add new units. Of course, I know that will never ever happen. I love SC2 but I'm not sure if it will last as long as Brood War or not.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
I answered above to the exact same question. And honestly the source of my complaint is not the fact I don't like SC2. I think SC2 is a great game better than most RTS out there hands down. Problem is SCBW was just on another level and what makes me sad is that SC2 is just a huge delusion compared to its predecessor. This expansion is not going to make things better and that's why my opinion is negative. If there was no SCBW in the first place as a term of comparison I am pretty sure everybody would love SC2 even more.
I'm not going to attack you for your opinion. I just think it's quite sad (like, depressing, not like nerdy/lonely/whatever) that a pro player doesn't prefer the game he plays because this new game is more popular than the old one.
I hope that HotS is really good, contrary to your beliefs, not just for me and my enjoyment, but so that people can feel it has lived up to BW's legacy.
On December 04 2011 05:12 Sandro wrote: Why are we taking a guy whos racist opinions seriously?
Like I said before, we don't see many of the bigger names flying out on the night of anymore. They are planning out their schedules well in advance now. It isn't as big an issue as others would led you to believe.
I used to fly all over the place as well. The first few months were brutal, but then I got used to it.
The format between the GSL and the OSL isn't really different at all. You cannot really train for specific opponents in the PL anymore either. All you can do is train for the specific map that your coach is going to send you out on.
The volatile nature rests in the total package. Right now it's incomplete.
*
As for MJL,
I'll take honest answers over bullshit ones any day of the week.
How a player looks at the game can be different from how they play it.
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
Not being satisfied about the current state of the game means you should quit? Everyone of us wants this game to be as perfect as it can be. The game is still not an entire coinflip, it's just pretty volatile at the moment. I don't think there's any progamer out there that feels the game is right where it needs to be, but we've seen improvements and it's still a great game. But when we see something that's wrong with it we should be able to complain, no?
I suppose I should clarify. I was under the impression that Cloud didn't like the game, and was only playing because he was good at it. It was never made clear to me that his problems were with the current state of StarCraft II, not with the video-game itself.
He already apologized in another post and clarified his position. In any case, being a "racist" (which I don't think he actually is) is a separate and unrelated issue from his ability to judge the game.
not surprising hearing clouds opinion on this, he was totally QQ'ing in the terran UP thread.
Seems like all of their answers are something we could've just guessed on our own, the game needs to be balanced, people are gonna switch, yadda yadda.
I thank you for taking the time to interview these players
On December 04 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote: Well your right about that. FXOBoss made mention to this in one of his blog entries as well.
The Koreans haven't embraced SC2 like they have with BW.
Last week the OGN studio had a packed house for most of the PL matches.
It is pretty sad, I mean I love both BW and SC2 but Kespa made it bit hard for everyone with all that drama last year. I think Korea should have Starcraft 2 televised, not just on a cable TV channel - there are rumours that Kespa will embrace SC2 and ongamenet will soon start their own Starcraft 2 league.
More BW background players will likely to make the tournaments more competitive, more researches with units will be done, more strategies and breakouts without a balance patch. Hence the game could become bit more balanced!
As for HOTS - I really don't think people should discuss it seriously as if things that have been revealed will change : )
On December 04 2011 05:35 StarStruck wrote: Well your right about that. FXOBoss made mention to this in one of his blog entries as well.
The Koreans haven't embraced SC2 like they have with BW.
Last week the OGN studio had a packed house for most of the PL matches.
It is pretty sad, I mean I love both BW and SC2 but Kespa made it bit hard for everyone with all that drama last year. I think Korea should have Starcraft 2 televised, not just on a cable TV channel - there are rumours that Kespa will embrace SC2 and ongamenet will soon start their own Starcraft 2 league.
More BW background players will likely to make the tournaments more competitive, more researches with units will be done, more strategies and breakouts without a balance patch. Hence the game could become bit more balanced!
As for HOTS - I really don't think people should discuss it seriously as if things that have been revealed will change : )
Agreed, it's a hopeless case though. Just have to wait and see. :D
On December 04 2011 05:10 CryingPoo wrote: Guys, remember how things were introduced in the alpha? then changed heaps in the beta? then the game got released and it changed even more? The given information about HOTS is not definite , it will most likely to change hence there isn't really a point in arguing about HOTS balance.
I really hope you're right about that. Oracle/Replicant are really stupid units and I hope both are changed.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
Obviously pros are kinda against HOTS because it makes the game volatile again at least for a while, but blizzard wont make a game that would be played by 200 progamers and nobody else. I think the secret behind SC2 success is that it appeals in both casuals and hc gamers. People actually play SC2 actively instead of only watching it. I think new units and that stuff will bring more casuals and is good for pros in the long run.
I've been skeptical about HoTS ever since Blizzcon. But SC2 looks pretty solid at the moment which is one reason why I am glad that HoTS is unlikely to be out until late next year, maybe even later. This means that we have a solid game to play for at least a year where I hope Blizzard minimises the balance patching and lets the game develop in the hands of the players and maybe even the mapmakers. If, as I suspect, HoTS turns SC into a game that I am not willing to play or watch, then it will be time to move on and play other games or do other things with that time formerly spent gaming.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed?
EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed?
EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have
I don't see how there can be other way to talk about the new HotS units than theorycrafting about them and didn't blizzard want to hear the communities opinion about the new units that might or might not get added to the HotS release. Funny that you start theroycrafting about scenarios where player skill is involved, which pretty much means that the counter argument might as well be not getting your viper sniped/emp or how about go around the marines/stalkers. Honestly I ain't holding my breath for any of the ''might get add units'' for the HotS. And your edit just confuses me... since I don't know where I was implying that the game becomes better when you just make random stuff. o.O
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Defiler =/= Viper, but only reason why viper is seen as defiler comeback is because it has ''reverse dark swarm''.
That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
So criticism is quite broad here. Sometimes, conflicting and contradictory expectations are thrown out.
For example, one pro doesn't like that units have only certain uses and the fact that they are limited units. The other is complaining about OP units, like heroes from WC3, those which "dictate the game" and are used all the time. Aren't these contradictory in the root?
I agree, too many spellcasters might end up making it like WC3 though. And I am baffled that they add more spellcasters to Protoss as well. Protoss already have a lot of spellcasters, expensive and strong units, which makes Protoss games weird, they either stomp opponents or fail spectacularly. Adding more of those to Protoss could make it even more extreme, and it will be difficult to balance.
In any event, I don't think HOTS is that different than WoL or even BW. Both of the latter had spellcasters which were heavily used. A lot of drama, but in the end, dark archon, arbiter, HTs, Science Vessels etc. were all used a lot in BW.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed?
EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have
I don't see how there can be other way to talk about the new HotS units than theorycrafting about them and didn't blizzard want to hear the communities opinion about the new units that might or might not get added to the HotS release. Funny that you start theroycrafting about scenarios where player skill is involved, which pretty much means that the counter argument might as well be not getting your viper sniped/emp or how about go around the marines/stalkers. Honestly I ain't holding my breath for any of the ''might get add units'' for the HotS. And your edit just confuses me... since I don't know where I was implying that the game becomes better when you just make random stuff. o.O
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Defiler =/= Viper, but only reason why viper is seen as defiler comeback is because it has ''reverse dark swarm''.
That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
The swarm host forces your opponent to react. If they don't, then they'll be slowly widdled away. Of course they will be counter-attacked if you have insufficient support units, that's a given. Blizzard can tweak the cooldown of the locusts if it is too slow.
If you can draw out your opponent because they need to deal with the swarm hosts, then you can surround with positional advantage.
On December 04 2011 07:35 Mehukannu wrote:That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
The rate of spawning/number spawned each wave/etc can be changed. They might undergo further testing and increase the rate of spawn or something, what you saw at Blizzcon is highly likely not set in stone.
Also just because you're using them to siege bases doesn't mean that your army won't be nearby. Brood lords are used to siege bases/armies but absolutely cannot be used without the support of the army, because they're so vulnerable alone. The swarm host attacks in a different way, but most likely army support will be necessary.
From what I thought people liked the new units from Blizzcon. It really annoys me when a group of people simply assume that everyone agrees HotS will be bad. There's a bunch of people in this thread that completely lack perspective and seem convinced their opinion is the only relevant one. It's fine when Cloud feels negatively about HotS, but I'd rather not have people use it as evidence for HotS being awful. It's just his opinion, not fact.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
On December 04 2011 09:34 newbcake wrote: if these are pros why havent i heard of any of them. call em for what they are, no name nobodies. dont care what their opinion is
people do care what their opinion is and they are certainly not as useless as your pointless bashing post so stfu.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Dont really see how a swarm host can hold ground. People for some reason think he is like a luker just because he has to burrow to use his ability.
And a "siege base" role is missing in the zeg ? Really ? What are the broodlords for ?
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Dont really see how a swarm host can hold ground. People for some reason think he is like a luker just because he has to burrow to use his ability.
And a "siege base" role is missing in the zeg ? Really ? What are the broodlords for ?
Holds ground because you can constantly pressure/defend a choke with support units.
You're right about the broodlords. Zerg is missing a mid-game siege unit. Sometimes a Zerg can't beat a turtler even with significant advantage without teching to greater spire tech.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
I am not a pro, but I see a lot of consistency from some players, which points in the direction of a not-so-random game. It may also be that there is a part of randomness due to the fact that the game is still really young and strategies that seem good maybee have really bad points that are not seen at the moment? Anyway, MVP and Nestea are two good example of a consistency that is no in agreement with an exceedling high randomness factor.
But I do agree with too much aoe. And I'm speaking from a viewer point of view.
Last but not least, a point very dear to me: I can't, for the life of me, understand why everybody that really loved SCBW have to cry out loud how the skillcap was higher before... It's unquestionable that the mechanics in SCBW are harder and to be good at SCBW you have to be better, from the mechanics point of view. But both SCBW and SCII are STRATEGY games. Skill should be defined as strategic and tactical skill. If we only had something to control the game only via the mind, what you define the "skill" needed to play the game would be lower, much lower, as you don't need to train the fingers, but would make the games worst? The entertaining value is the battle of decision, it's not the battle of apm.
The better UI in SCII, in respect of a terrible interface for SCBW (12 units in a control group, really? I may be wrong on the number, but it is really small and that's the point), helps move the attention of the player from trying to make every one of his units do something to the more tactical aspect of the game. If I watch a match of SCBW I can be amazed of how the pro can actually make their units do stuff, but only because I know how hard it is when I played the game. This although, is not something understood by any viewer, but only by those who actively play the game, ergo it's not a plus for an esport as ANYONE should be able to understand the value of what's happening in a match.
SCBW is great, but I have always felt like the lower mechanics requirement from SCII will allow for more tactical matches. That's why I would be curious to see a SCBW pro show what they can do with all the apm they don't need and their really finely tuned strategic and tactical thinking, for whose they would have more time during the game.
I don't think we should give up hope just yet; has any Progamers been able to play HoTS and give feedback to the development team? Probably not.
Let us hope David Kim will be able to make the right changes, now they have WoL and it's progaming scene to look back on when they design the sequel, even before the Beta.
Maybe Blizzard realizes/focuses on how important it is for the game to be successful as an eSport to further sales, longevity and popularity (they do make money from tournaments).
I will be guardedly positive to HoTS.
And to the Progamers in this thread and otherwhere: (try to) talk to Blizzard and give them your view what needs to be done, in a constructive way. You may be ignored but at least you have tried, it is a better shot than this thread.
Remember some things are just worth fighting for.
EDIT: The fact that there is an expansion I think is positive, it's a chance to make things better.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
I am not a pro, but I see a lot of consistency from some players, which points in the direction of a not-so-random game. It may also be that there is a part of randomness due to the fact that the game is still really young and strategies that seem good maybee have really bad points that are not seen at the moment? Anyway, MVP and Nestea are two good example of a consistency that is no in agreement with an exceedling high randomness factor.
But I do agree with too much aoe. And I'm speaking from a viewer point of view.
Last but not least, a point very dear to me: I can't, for the life of me, understand why everybody that really loved SCBW have to cry out loud how the skillcap was higher before... It's unquestionable that the mechanics in SCBW are harder and to be good at SCBW you have to be better, from the mechanics point of view. But both SCBW and SCII are STRATEGY games. Skill should be defined as strategic and tactical skill. If we only had something to control the game only via the mind, what you define the "skill" needed to be the game would be lower, much lower, as you don't need to train the fingers, but would make the games worst? The entertaining value is the battle of decision, it's not the battle of apm.
The better UI in SCII, in respect of a terrible interface for SCBW (12 units in a control group, really? I may be wrong on the number, but it is really small and that's the point), helps move the attention of the player from trying to make every one of his units do something to the more tactical aspect of the game. If I watch a match of SCBW I can be amazed of how the pro can actually make their units do stuff, but only because I know how hard it is when I played the game. This although, is not something understood by any viewer, but only by those who actively play the game, ergo it's not a plus for an esport as ANYONE should be able to understand the value of what's happening in a match.
SCBW is great, but I have always felt like the lower mechanics requirement from SCII will allow for more tactical matches. That's why I would be curious to see a SCBW pro show what they can do with all the apm they don't need and their really finely tuned strategic and tactical thinking, for whose they would have more time during the game.
It's real-time strategy, that means it's important how fast and quickly you can do things.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
You don't see Flash play against B-Teamer or rookie / trainies either. That's just an assumption that you're making.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
The swarm host is a stupid unit. Probably the only dumber unit in HOTS is the oracle (what a disgustingly one-dimensional unit). There is no strategical implementation. If you see it you know exactly what is coming.
The units cool factor is that it spawns units sans resources but the mechanics are dumb. It doesn't even take energy to spawn, and you cannot control how much or when you spawn.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement.
There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win.
By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
I am not a pro, but I see a lot of consistency from some players, which points in the direction of a not-so-random game. It may also be that there is a part of randomness due to the fact that the game is still really young and strategies that seem good maybee have really bad points that are not seen at the moment? Anyway, MVP and Nestea are two good example of a consistency that is no in agreement with an exceedling high randomness factor.
But I do agree with too much aoe. And I'm speaking from a viewer point of view.
Last but not least, a point very dear to me: I can't, for the life of me, understand why everybody that really loved SCBW have to cry out loud how the skillcap was higher before... It's unquestionable that the mechanics in SCBW are harder and to be good at SCBW you have to be better, from the mechanics point of view. But both SCBW and SCII are STRATEGY games. Skill should be defined as strategic and tactical skill. If we only had something to control the game only via the mind, what you define the "skill" needed to be the game would be lower, much lower, as you don't need to train the fingers, but would make the games worst? The entertaining value is the battle of decision, it's not the battle of apm.
The better UI in SCII, in respect of a terrible interface for SCBW (12 units in a control group, really? I may be wrong on the number, but it is really small and that's the point), helps move the attention of the player from trying to make every one of his units do something to the more tactical aspect of the game. If I watch a match of SCBW I can be amazed of how the pro can actually make their units do stuff, but only because I know how hard it is when I played the game. This although, is not something understood by any viewer, but only by those who actively play the game, ergo it's not a plus for an esport as ANYONE should be able to understand the value of what's happening in a match.
SCBW is great, but I have always felt like the lower mechanics requirement from SCII will allow for more tactical matches. That's why I would be curious to see a SCBW pro show what they can do with all the apm they don't need and their really finely tuned strategic and tactical thinking, for whose they would have more time during the game.
It's real-time strategy, that means it's important how fast and quickly you can do things.
Yes, the real-time factor implies multitasking. The point is that for many it seems that the multitasking aspect of the game is mainly related to what the fingers do, for me it is the multitasking of the mind the one that holds value (try to have only the first one: you have no use for all your apm, in the opposite condition, you are just limited in the way you express your tactical genius). What I mean by that is: compare a game wher you must have 2 billion finger-apm to just move the units (without any chance to actually think of where you are moving them and why) and a game where you move everything with the mind, which means that you just need like 100 mind-apm to be able to command everything perfectly and a pro thus have a tons of time to think about tactics. What game do you think will hold the most entertaining value for a public of people that doens't really care to be amazed at the agility of the fingers of the pros? When you hear a good piano-player, you are amazed at his finger skills for a good minute, then all you really care (on average) is the musical value of what he is producing.
I'm hoping they wait until at least 2013 to release it. I like WoL the way it is currently. A release date hasn't been announced right?
"It’s too early to talk about a specific release date at this point in time. As with all Blizzard games, our ultimate goal is to provide the best possible experience for our players, and we will take as much time as is needed to ensure that Heart of the Swarm meets the expectations of our players, as well as our own high standards." Source: Heart of the Swarm FAQ
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
The swarm host is a stupid unit. Probably the only dumber unit in HOTS is the oracle (what a disgustingly one-dimensional unit). There is no strategical implementation. If you see it you know exactly what is coming.
The units cool factor is that it spawns units sans resources but the mechanics are dumb. It doesn't even take energy to spawn, and you cannot control how much or when you spawn.
Isn't that the case for any unit?
I don't know why it needs energy. It spawns timed-units and the spawns attack substitutes the sparm host's attack. It just deals DPS a bit differently, somewhat comparable to the broodlord.
mmm i like how everyone compares the viper to the defiler, while its skill is actually that of the corsair just in a weaker form, also funny that people so hate on "micro killer skills", only because of its range 11 i consider fungal a micro killer since almost no unit outrange the skill and even that is debatable. Skills like force field force alot of micro to negate its effect. Disruption web Zerg version, actually forces a reaction (which is micro ;o). I hope they make it a ground based aoe and no aoe debuff (staying on the unit even if it moves out).
Damn everytime people talk about the viper, i see those mass corsairs versus mass hydras, and then disruption web everywhere and 2 shuttles drop 4 reavers and thy straight out kill all the hydras, because of so many disruption webs. Just never let those corsairs survive the the dt aggression >.< .
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
The swarm host is a stupid unit. Probably the only dumber unit in HOTS is the oracle (what a disgustingly one-dimensional unit). There is no strategical implementation. If you see it you know exactly what is coming.
The units cool factor is that it spawns units sans resources but the mechanics are dumb. It doesn't even take energy to spawn, and you cannot control how much or when you spawn.
Isn't that the case for any unit?
I don't know why it needs energy. It spawns timed-units and the spawns attack substitutes the sparm host's attack. It just deals DPS a bit differently, somewhat comparable to the broodlord.
Having played with it in the most accurate UMS map, I have a lurking feeling it it won't be used in competitive play. Sure, you can use it to give splash on to enemies or as a gaurd for mineral lines, but its nowhere close to being mobile enough to supplement the current zerg swarm.
The viper I am honestly completely excited about, nothing was more exciting then watching zerg flanks in conjunction with dark swarm. It'll hopefully introduce a lot more pre-engagement micro games, the little pull outs we've been seeing like ghosts walking out of the army to kill a templar, or stalkers countering the ghosts. I am worried infestors will still be the choice caster, considering the nullify enemy micro and deal damage, where viper can be dodged out of and is nowhere near as useful as the dark swarm was.
On December 03 2011 12:25 Oradri wrote: A new expansion so soon ... idk just seems to fast.
BW released like 8 months after vanilla.
Shows how much harder it is to make a game today.
Not really, they just dump more money into them. You can rush a game out pretty easily if you dont change things as much
Well...if they have to dump more money into them, it's probably because it cost a lot more and require much more work. That's the "harder" I was going for, not for how hard it is to come up with ideas.
I know SC1 had been in development for a freakishly long time too, for the expansion it seemed that Blizzard went really straight forward with it though. I wonder if that's more luck or a real stroke of genius
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
I answered above to the exact same question. And honestly the source of my complaint is not the fact I don't like SC2. I think SC2 is a great game better than most RTS out there hands down. Problem is SCBW was just on another level and what makes me sad is that SC2 is just a huge delusion compared to its predecessor. This expansion is not going to make things better and that's why my opinion is negative. If there was no SCBW in the first place as a term of comparison I am pretty sure everybody would love SC2 even more.
+ respect for cloud
Saying things like they are, without caring what others believe. There are so many glaring flaws in SC2, its not even funny. Half the matchups are coinflips and Blizzard is making no attempt at fixing them. Like I always say, if we the community had not complained about 1 supply roaches and 70 damage siege tanks this game would be just another shitty RTS that nobody will remember.
On December 04 2011 04:41 StarStruck wrote: BTW Cloud is spot on about Sean. Promoting the game has become his job and you will always see him take a step back before he answers any touchy subject. Not the first time I say this either. Sean's a master at self-editing himself. It's smart on his part to take all the time in the world to construct his answers to such controversial things.
Too bad "Sean Plott carefully chooses his words in order to protect his paycheck" has absolutely no bearing on the issue of whether or not video game skill denotes the ability to understand and articulate issues in game design, a question that everyone seems terrified to answer.
Yes, but as Sean is both a former top player and someone famliar with design in general, I think we're okay. Sean makes subtle but unmistakable hints in his dailies.
It's a photo from the Wings of Liberty alpha. Shouldn't really be in that article.
The two colossus are the same, it's just that one of them is located slightly under the camera, so the legs look a bit funky. The single shot thing is from the alpha, along with the super-huge thors. Can't be the HotS thor, because there are two of them.
The Warhound for example might as well be a Goliath with splash damage.
Tempest might as well be a bigger Corsair with ground attack.
IDK about others but I really want the Corsair back instead of Tempest >.>.
Well about the bugs and the BW units, Dustin Browder made it very clear that they were not trying to remake BW. "If you want BW, go play BW" (That was what he said).
Having said that, I gotta agree with ClouD. New units will require a lot of balancing. And as if this wasn't hard enough, most of the units have very specific goals. I fear that the fact of having so many spellcasters in the game will make the game too micro oriented and less strategy/understanding-the-AI oriented. It's like moving away from Starcraft towards Warcraft.
There's a huge difference between being a carbon copy of BW and being a great sequel to an RTS that is similar but still different enough. (Also there is a difference between using what made BW great and applying it to the sequel vs just remaking the game exactly the same with better graphics. Though in this post I'll be talking about units rather than BW vs SC2, the Corsair is just an example since it's already been designed and can be used as reference.)
(Also Browder was also talking more along the mechanics (things like units clumping) rather than the units.)
Adding the Corsair into SC2 instead of the Tempest (for example) in no way makes it BW (well besides having similar units but hey the game already has the same three races as BW).
Also it's not taking a Goliath (for example) and giving it splash damage but calling it a Warhound does not make it a Goliath with splash damage.
Finally he was already open to the idea of the Warhound being just a Goliath with AA splash damage but just wasn't sure since it felt like a cop out to the players for reusing an existing unit, "not" because "if you want to play BW go play BW".
That's the thing though - I don't think it's a cop out if it fits into play perfectly. (Also there isn't even an existing "official" SC2 Corsair model >.>.)
So overall - Corsair needs to be brought back plox. David Kim or Dustin Browder are you reading >.>? Corsair can have more fancy game play mechanics than what seems to be attack-move Tempest.
Corsair and Phoenix can be the same thing. Just make Corsair require Dark Shrine or something (with Corsair upgrades being on DS) to synergize with Dark Templar.
Edit - The reason why I want the Corsair so much is because it would probably be better than the Tempest. I want SC2 to improve as a game. Just because the Corsair is a BW unit doesn't mean I want SC2 to become BW.
For example I wouldn't argue for the Lurker instead of the Swarm Host because the Swarm Host is not really that similar to the Lurker at all. They serve different roles. Also while the Swarm Host is boring to use for the player, it is not for the enemy (the enemy has to know how to defend against it) which makes it a good unit IMO (at least compared to "a-move" units).
The Swarm Host is an interesting unit on it's own.
However with the Tempest it's different.The Tempest so far seems like a lackluster unit because there's not that much micro potential or fancy stuff you do using it or against it that is any different from any other generic unit.
It's just another capital ship that's even less micro intensive than the Carrier. The Corsair being a spell caster + anti air specialist is a good alternative IMO and it can easily coexist with the Phoenix.
If it weren't for the fact that they replaced the Carrier with The Tempest (an AA splash damage dealer), I would have not be arguing for Corsair at all in this case. Since Blizzard did decide to want to add the Tempest in (mainly for anti air), I argue the Corsair has a lot more potential to be a better unit than the Tempest.
One last thing - It doesn't even have to be the Corsair but just something else (Again Corsair was chosen because it already exists and is easy to reference). Right now I think the Tempest is lacking as a good unit. Again it's simply an a-move unit with no fancy stuff. There's no unique ways to use the Tempest or to play against the Tempest as say with (for example) the Swarm Host or the Oracle.
It's a photo from the Wings of Liberty alpha. Shouldn't really be in that article.
The two colossus are the same, it's just that one of them is located slightly under the camera, so the legs look a bit funky. The single shot thing is from the alpha, along with the super-huge thors. Can't be the HotS thor, because there are two of them.
Ah thanks, was wondering why there are 2 thors too.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed?
EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have
I don't see how there can be other way to talk about the new HotS units than theorycrafting about them and didn't blizzard want to hear the communities opinion about the new units that might or might not get added to the HotS release. Funny that you start theroycrafting about scenarios where player skill is involved, which pretty much means that the counter argument might as well be not getting your viper sniped/emp or how about go around the marines/stalkers. Honestly I ain't holding my breath for any of the ''might get add units'' for the HotS. And your edit just confuses me... since I don't know where I was implying that the game becomes better when you just make random stuff. o.O
On December 04 2011 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote:
On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Defiler =/= Viper, but only reason why viper is seen as defiler comeback is because it has ''reverse dark swarm''.
That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
The swarm host forces your opponent to react. If they don't, then they'll be slowly widdled away. Of course they will be counter-attacked if you have insufficient support units, that's a given. Blizzard can tweak the cooldown of the locusts if it is too slow.
If you can draw out your opponent because they need to deal with the swarm hosts, then you can surround with positional advantage.
If you already got your opponent holed up on his base. Chances are that you most likely didn't even need to make swarm hosts to keep him in the base. Instead you could start going for broodlords and possibly finish the opponent off. The problem I also see in the unit is that you either have so low count of them that it doesn't do anything or you need to have too much of them to actually be a threat meaning that you need to use most of the supply to that one unit leaving you vulnerable to banshees for example. There really isn't any middle ground for the unit where it would be a threat in relatively small-moderate numbers, but then it would mean that it might become too good if you go past that x amount of swarm hosts. It can't even support the zerg army in an battle because the spawned units get stuck behind other zerg units and it most likely gets out one round of units out seeing how fast the battles end in SC2. It is very weird that a swarm host needs to have an army to support it while siege units should be the one to support the army.
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed?
EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have
I don't see how there can be other way to talk about the new HotS units than theorycrafting about them and didn't blizzard want to hear the communities opinion about the new units that might or might not get added to the HotS release. Funny that you start theroycrafting about scenarios where player skill is involved, which pretty much means that the counter argument might as well be not getting your viper sniped/emp or how about go around the marines/stalkers. Honestly I ain't holding my breath for any of the ''might get add units'' for the HotS. And your edit just confuses me... since I don't know where I was implying that the game becomes better when you just make random stuff. o.O
On December 04 2011 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote:
On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:
On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote: Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right?
New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Defiler =/= Viper, but only reason why viper is seen as defiler comeback is because it has ''reverse dark swarm''.
That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
The swarm host forces your opponent to react. If they don't, then they'll be slowly widdled away. Of course they will be counter-attacked if you have insufficient support units, that's a given. Blizzard can tweak the cooldown of the locusts if it is too slow.
If you can draw out your opponent because they need to deal with the swarm hosts, then you can surround with positional advantage.
If you already got your opponent holed up on his base. Chances are that you most likely didn't even need to make swarm hosts to keep him in the base. Instead you could start going for broodlords and possibly finish the opponent off. The problem I also see in the unit is that you either have so low count of them that it doesn't do anything or you need to have too much of them to actually be a threat meaning that you need to use most of the supply to that one unit leaving you vulnerable to banshees for example. There really isn't any middle ground for the unit where it would be a threat in relatively small-moderate numbers, but then it would mean that it might become too good if you go past that x amount of swarm hosts. It can't even support the zerg army in an battle because the spawned units get stuck behind other zerg units and it most likely gets out one round of units out seeing how fast the battles end in SC2. It is very weird that a swarm host needs to have an army to support it while siege units should be the one to support the army.
Dropped Swarm Hosts? Although I can't remember if they actually get cloaked when burrowed or not.
Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
You really shouldn't put much stock into competitive wow. It was never meant/designed to be a competitive game, and it has never gotten close to the level of balance or skill level that SC2 has now.
I think you really missed the point. I wasn't saying WoW was the epitome of skill until Blizzard screwed up. I'm saying that a game was perfectly fine until Blizzard screwed it up and the same thing could happen to SC2. Please don't turn this into a WoW vs SC2 debate... -.-
TBC was a good exp though :p
More to the point, the opinions run the gamut from excitement to bitterness and skew a bit negative. That is to be expected because people don't like change. The pro scene is constantly kicking people to the door and it is likely that HOTS will be the coup de gras for many of those guys who were interviewed. Self-preservation is a strong driving force!
I really like the Zerg/Terran changes and dislike the Protoss changes. As a whole I also think that Zerg and Toss needed another mineral dump (and didn't get one, but zerg got some other cool things), while terran needed some more gas options and ended up getting them. Maybe hydras and pheonix could become more mineral heavy, I'm not sure.
tbc > vanilla > cata = wotlk
;p at least on the "fun scale" maybe it just got stale for me after tbc
The Warhound for example might as well be a Goliath with splash damage.
Tempest might as well be a bigger Corsair with ground attack.
IDK about others but I really want the Corsair back instead of Tempest >.>.
Well about the bugs and the BW units, Dustin Browder made it very clear that they were not trying to remake BW. "If you want BW, go play BW" (That was what he said).
Having said that, I gotta agree with ClouD. New units will require a lot of balancing. And as if this wasn't hard enough, most of the units have very specific goals. I fear that the fact of having so many spellcasters in the game will make the game too micro oriented and less strategy/understanding-the-AI oriented. It's like moving away from Starcraft towards Warcraft.
There's a huge difference between being a carbon copy of BW and being a great sequel to an RTS that is similar but still different enough. (Also there is a difference between using what made BW great and applying it to the sequel vs just remaking the game exactly the same with better graphics. Though in this post I'll be talking about units rather than BW vs SC2, the Corsair is just an example since it's already been designed and can be used as reference.)
(Also Browder was also talking more along the mechanics (things like units clumping) rather than the units.)
Adding the Corsair into SC2 instead of the Tempest (for example) in no way makes it BW (well besides having similar units but hey the game already has the same three races as BW).
Also it's not taking a Goliath (for example) and giving it splash damage but calling it a Warhound does not make it a Goliath with splash damage.
Finally he was already open to the idea of the Warhound being just a Goliath with AA splash damage but just wasn't sure since it felt like a cop out to the players for reusing an existing unit, "not" because "if you want to play BW go play BW".
That's the thing though - I don't think it's a cop out if it fits into play perfectly. (Also there isn't even an existing "official" SC2 Corsair model >.>.)
So overall - Corsair needs to be brought back plox. David Kim or Dustin Browder are you reading >.>? Corsair can have more fancy game play mechanics than what seems to be attack-move Tempest.
Corsair and Phoenix can be the same thing. Just make Corsair require Dark Shrine or something (with Corsair upgrades being on DS) to synergize with Dark Templar.
Edit - The reason why I want the Corsair so much is because it would probably be better than the Tempest. I want SC2 to improve as a game. Just because the Corsair is a BW unit doesn't mean I want SC2 to become BW.
For example I wouldn't argue for the Lurker instead of the Swarm Host because the Swarm Host is not really that similar to the Lurker at all. They serve different roles. Also while the Swarm Host is boring to use for the player, it is not for the enemy (the enemy has to know how to defend against it) which makes it a good unit IMO (at least compared to "a-move" units).
The Swarm Host is an interesting unit on it's own.
However with the Tempest it's different.The Tempest so far seems like a lackluster unit because there's not that much micro potential or fancy stuff you do using it or against it that is any different from any other generic unit.
It's just another capital ship that's even less micro intensive than the Carrier. The Corsair being a spell caster + anti air specialist is a good alternative IMO and it can easily coexist with the Phoenix.
If it weren't for the fact that they replaced the Carrier with The Tempest (an AA splash damage dealer), I would have not be arguing for Corsair at all in this case. Since Blizzard did decide to want to add the Tempest in (mainly for anti air), I argue the Corsair has a lot more potential to be a better unit than the Tempest.
One last thing - It doesn't even have to be the Corsair but just something else (Again Corsair was chosen because it already exists and is easy to reference). Right now I think the Tempest is lacking as a good unit. Again it's simply an a-move unit with no fancy stuff. There's no unique ways to use the Tempest or to play against the Tempest as say with (for example) the Swarm Host or the Oracle.
Great post. I agree 100 %.
We all know by now that it isn't DB's goal to recreate Brood War with better graphics, but that doesn't mean that he can't use some of the aspects of Brood War that made it amazing, and bring those aspects to SC2.
I'm definitely not very impressed by the Tempest. Especially since they stated in the Oracle video that they wanted to make Protoss less deathball-y. The Tempest just seems like a unit that fits well into the deathball, since it is just another expensive Protoss AOE-unit.
I would much rather see either the Corsair again, or an upgrade to the phoenix to make them better against mutas. Mutas in pvz are a pain to deal with, but the Tempest doesn't seem to be the right solution. If phoenix were better against mutas in large numbers(perhaps through an upgrade that gave them aoe-damage with a radius the size of the thor attack's) it would solve some muta-related problems in the matchup.
Interesting view by Cloud - by his definition, we should've had many different GSL Champions then!
I also suggest that Cloud is by no means a top player - since he's the bad player now, he should take his own advice and take advantage of the ability to gamble and win against the good players.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
On December 04 2011 20:10 Azzur wrote: Interesting view by Cloud - by his definition, we should've had many different GSL Champions then!
I also suggest that Cloud is by no means a top player - since he's the bad player now, he should take his own advice and take advantage of the ability to gamble and win against the good players.
Seems like there is a change of hand who has been winning gsl , 2010 sambo intel Fruit dealer, 2010 sony erricson Nestea, 2010 Sony MC , that's only the 2010 , when I look downwards at the 2011 section , my jaw literally drop on the floor .So many players just win the gsl as if it's a common competition it's like an all shoot out turkey competition , anyone can just win the tournament .
Weird. Having played sc many years ago, (from release through broodwar rlease) then stopping for the last 3-4 years prior to sc2, then coming back to SCBW it was a very interesting experience. One can argue that mechanically BW was pretty intense. no multi-building select, no smart casting, etc. But sc2 certainly feels like an evolution in game design rather than 'more of the same'.
This argument about the clumping of units getting owned by AoE sounds so similar to the 'individual casting of spells' and unit pathing screwing up in BW except one thing: in BW players learned to deal with it. Some of the most 'exciting' feats of mechanical skill at face-value are just players fighting *against* the game's UI so it doesn't herp-derp against them (ie, microing dragoons around spider mines with the horrible pathing). What's interesting is I haven't seen much argument for players 'fighting against' the clumping of units in sc2 by microing them properly, or even having multiple control groups to fight better against aoe.
Despite some of the apparent 'reduced' skill to play sc2, I watch high level games and you can still see a *ton* of opportunities to play better mechanically (manually keeping your units from clumping constantly is one example that we're seeing rapidly evolve). I sometimes wonder if those that are disappointed in the 'skill ceiling' of sc2 in reality are trying to compare how their bw skills transfer to sc2, when in fact sc2 places less value on those and more value on 'newer' mechanical ideas, some of which have yet to even be seen in games or discovered yet.
On December 04 2011 20:34 Neotik wrote: Weird. Having played sc many years ago, (from release through broodwar rlease) then stopping for the last 3-4 years prior to sc2, then coming back to SCBW it was a very interesting experience. One can argue that mechanically BW was pretty intense. no multi-building select, no smart casting, etc. But sc2 certainly feels like an evolution in game design rather than 'more of the same'.
This argument about the clumping of units getting owned by AoE sounds so similar to the 'individual casting of spells' and unit pathing screwing up in BW except one thing: in BW players learned to deal with it. Some of the most 'exciting' feats of mechanical skill at face-value are just players fighting *against* the game's UI so it doesn't herp-derp against them (ie, microing dragoons around spider mines with the horrible pathing). What's interesting is I haven't seen much argument for players 'fighting against' the clumping of units in sc2 by microing them properly, or even having multiple control groups to fight better against aoe.
Despite some of the apparent 'reduced' skill to play sc2, I watch high level games and you can still see a *ton* of opportunities to play better mechanically (manually keeping your units from clumping constantly is one example that we're seeing rapidly evolve). I sometimes wonder if those that are disappointed in the 'skill ceiling' of sc2 in reality are trying to compare how their bw skills transfer to sc2, when in fact sc2 places less value on those and more value on 'newer' mechanical ideas, some of which have yet to even be seen in games or discovered yet.
I totally agree with you , the ai is so horrible in this situation , bisu should just smash his keyboard and say I quit man damn horrible ai made me lose the game .
Oh tempest also must have complained about the bad ai you know , they usually freezes in the middle of your attack command and lose the game to light's proxy racks marine push , after all bad ai prevails over good players .
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
Naniwa made horrible mistakes in the series and Cloud was abble to win thx to naniwa's mistakes, thats how tvp works. Troll more.
Im sorry your feelings got hurt, Cloud. But im sorry, i also consider you mid tier foreigner, and that is based on your games. Feel free to disagree, but the results speaks for itself. That said, im not sure why you see that as a "bad" thing, i mean, being mid tier foreigner still means, your pretty good. Now we are past the "emo" part, i have to say , that i agree with your view on the HOTS units, they seem gimmicky, boring, to the extreme.
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
if what you are implying here was true and cloud was way worse than naniwa wouldnt that prove his point ? atleast make some sense before you decide to troll.
@BansheeDK - Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it .
Anyway about Cloud - I agree with him at least in the sense that I feel that Blizzard could make SC2 much better than it is.
IMO the Oracle is fine. Only new units I am concerned about are the Replicant (not a bad unit by itself but it feels wrong for Protoss to have to use other race's units) and the Tempest (because it's an a-move unit).
Weird. Having played sc many years ago, (from release through broodwar rlease) then stopping for the last 3-4 years prior to sc2, then coming back to SCBW it was a very interesting experience. One can argue that mechanically BW was pretty intense. no multi-building select, no smart casting, etc. But sc2 certainly feels like an evolution in game design rather than 'more of the same'.
This argument about the clumping of units getting owned by AoE sounds so similar to the 'individual casting of spells' and unit pathing screwing up in BW except one thing: in BW players learned to deal with it. Some of the most 'exciting' feats of mechanical skill at face-value are just players fighting *against* the game's UI so it doesn't herp-derp against them (ie, microing dragoons around spider mines with the horrible pathing). What's interesting is I haven't seen much argument for players 'fighting against' the clumping of units in sc2 by microing them properly, or even having multiple control groups to fight better against aoe.
Despite some of the apparent 'reduced' skill to play sc2, I watch high level games and you can still see a *ton* of opportunities to play better mechanically (manually keeping your units from clumping constantly is one example that we're seeing rapidly evolve). I sometimes wonder if those that are disappointed in the 'skill ceiling' of sc2 in reality are trying to compare how their bw skills transfer to sc2, when in fact sc2 places less value on those and more value on 'newer' mechanical ideas, some of which have yet to even be seen in games or discovered yet.
Besides unclumping your units manually, there isn't any more mechanical stuff that SC2 has compared to BW.
As for BW skill coming from fighting the UI or so - True but it's still a valid part of the game.
Even in BW era stuff like automine could exist but Blizzard chose not do it for some reason (In Starcraft 64 there was automining. Even after SC64 came out, Blizzard never added automining to BW in a patch).
Now I'm not saying having to fight the UI is a good thing. There's a compromise that should be taken (that's why people aren't complaining that BW is too easy compared to say WC2 where there wasn't even queuing - BW has a good balance).
Though I'm not for changing SC2's mechanics right now. We'll have to see whether the game really requires it (it's still too early to tell). What I want is for Blizzard to be open to change "if" it is found that such things would improve the game. If removing smart casting (for example) would make SC2 a better game (by moving towards more of a balance of strategy vs mechanics) then I think Blizzard should be open to it.
On December 04 2011 22:44 Goldfish wrote: @BansheeDK - Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it .
Anyway about Cloud - I agree with him at least in the sense that I feel that Blizzard could make SC2 much better than it is.
IMO the Oracle is fine. Only new units I am concerned about are the Replicant (not a bad unit by itself but it feels wrong for Protoss to have to use other race's units) and the Tempest (because it's an a-move unit).
Yeah the replicant is terrible. I can already imagine protoss camping to death like usual and fortifying their defense with infestors and siege tanks. Really just fix the game already and add 1 good unit instead of a lot of random shit. People will buy the game for single player anyway there's no need to fuck up esport so bad.
Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
Why won't they? Are they afraid it would hurt esports or all of that ciclejerk? Are people that weakminded? Being honest is such an hard thing to do? Blizzard won't change shit (implying there's stuff to change of course) if relevant people in the community don't drop this thin veil of hypocrity, highlight stuff etc, bring issues to the table, give out advices out and loud, since an expansion is coming in 2012.
I'm sick, soo sick by this, I cannot stand hypocrites. If something's SHITTY, if something's BAD or CAN BE IMPROVED, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TALK ABOUT IT. Things WON'T get better magically or whatever, blizzard cannot figure out everything by themselves (as much as they would love to, arrogants as they are).
You know what? The very fact you are bringing up this issue, shows that deep down you actually CARE about the game, (ofc you do, it's your job lol).
Remember guys, being blind fanboys is BAD for everything in the world, criticizing and judging shows that you actually care/like something enough to spend portions of your time improving it.
On December 04 2011 22:44 Goldfish wrote: @BansheeDK - Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it .
Anyway about Cloud - I agree with him at least in the sense that I feel that Blizzard could make SC2 much better than it is.
IMO the Oracle is fine. Only new units I am concerned about are the Replicant (not a bad unit by itself but it feels wrong for Protoss to have to use other race's units) and the Tempest (because it's an a-move unit).
Yeah the replicant is terrible. I can already imagine protoss camping to death like usual and fortifying their defense with infestors and siege tanks. Really just fix the game already and add 1 good unit instead of a lot of random shit. People will buy the game for single player anyway there's no need to fuck up esport so bad.
Agreed. Now I'm one of the supporters of "wait for beta before getting into major debates" but with units like the Tempest or Replicant (for example) you can already see what's wrong with them. The Tempest is a boring a-move unit while the Replicant is a unit with the sole purpose is to use units from other races (which feels very wrong especially if we want SC2 to have 3 distinct races).
In either case I'm not saying that units won't work but I'm saying there is much room for improvement. Going for "it just works" is fine in certain cases but what we should do is go for "making it the best we could make it".
It's good to discuss it now because maybe it will help give insight to Blizzard sooner than normal.
Hopefully the HotS beta will last a long time with much player feedback incorporated.
Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
Why won't they? Are they afraid it would hurt esports or all of that ciclejerk? Are people that weakminded? Being honest is such an hard thing to do? Blizzard won't change shit (implying there's stuff to change of course) if relevant people in the community don't drop this thin veil of hypocrity, highlight stuff etc, bring issues to the table, give out advices out and loud, since an expansion is coming in 2012.
I'm sick, soo sick by this, I cannot stand hypocrites. If something's SHITTY, if something's BAD or CAN BE IMPROVED, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TALK ABOUT IT. Things WON'T get better magically or whatever, blizzard cannot figure out everything by themselves (as much as they would love to, arrogants as they are).
You know what? The very fact you are bringing up this issue, shows that deep down you actually CARE about the game, (ofc you do, it's your job lol).
Remember guys, being blind fanboys is BAD for everything in the world, criticizing and judging shows that you actually care/like something enough to spend portions of your time improving it.
Agreed.
Day9 has shown to really like BW. I definitely do feel a lot of pro gamers aren't voicing their opinions or at least providing ways for Blizzard to make SC2 a better game as a whole.
For example I don't think any pro gamer (besides Cloud) has really talked or discussed the new units for HotS and whether the new units in HotS can be improved or not.
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
rofl youre not making sense. Lets assume that cloud was a "bad" player, then theres still no double standard about it, it would just support that his opinion is true.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
How so? Assuming that the greedy build isnt something that is easily punishable, I really dont see how its underestimating someone. You take a bit of a risk so that you can play from an advantage, making it easier to play than on even ground, I dont think that means youre underestimating your opponent in the slightest. Playing safe on the other hand can mean that you think youre fine as long as you dont get caught off guard, then youre gonna outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game.
Tvp is abosllutely broken. Boring matchup and way too easy for mediocore toss players to win. At hots both races will require a lot of skill to win, and terran will be able to use mech .
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
rofl youre not making sense. Lets assume that cloud was a "bad" player, then theres still no double standard about it, it would just support that his opinion is true.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
How so? Assuming that the greedy build isnt something that is easily punishable, I really dont see how its underestimating someone. You take a bit of a risk so that you can play from an advantage, making it easier to play than on even ground, I dont think that means youre underestimating your opponent in the slightest. Playing safe on the other hand can mean that you think youre fine as long as you dont get caught off guard, then youre gonna outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game.
Our definitions of greedy differs then. Greedy for me is something that will be easily punishable by blind all-ins and such. You don't want to play like that vs someone you feel you can beat if you can take it to the mid to late game. Doing so, to me, feels a bit ignorant and you are just underestimating your opponents ability to punish your greedyness early on.
EDIT: Also why would you take small risks to get on "even grounds" if you think you can beat your opponent in the mid/late game? Playing safe sacrificies this because that extra gain you get from playing greedy vs an inferior opponent often results in you losing to something all-inish rather than taking it to the mid/late game.
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
Not necessarily a double standard. Unless he felt like he won because he abused a gamble aspect of the game.
He's not saying that he's the best, or anything like that.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
You really shouldn't put much stock into competitive wow. It was never meant/designed to be a competitive game, and it has never gotten close to the level of balance or skill level that SC2 has now.
I think you really missed the point. I wasn't saying WoW was the epitome of skill until Blizzard screwed up. I'm saying that a game was perfectly fine until Blizzard screwed it up and the same thing could happen to SC2. Please don't turn this into a WoW vs SC2 debate... -.-
TBC was a good exp though :p
More to the point, the opinions run the gamut from excitement to bitterness and skew a bit negative. That is to be expected because people don't like change. The pro scene is constantly kicking people to the door and it is likely that HOTS will be the coup de gras for many of those guys who were interviewed. Self-preservation is a strong driving force!
I really like the Zerg/Terran changes and dislike the Protoss changes. As a whole I also think that Zerg and Toss needed another mineral dump (and didn't get one, but zerg got some other cool things), while terran needed some more gas options and ended up getting them. Maybe hydras and pheonix could become more mineral heavy, I'm not sure.
tbc > vanilla > cata = wotlk
;p at least on the "fun scale" maybe it just got stale for me after tbc
excuse me...tbc > VANILLA? are you fucking kidding me man!?!?!?!?!?
you NEVER played vanilla then obviously!
get the demons out of you man!
Sounds kinda weird but I mean my best memories of having a good time were in vanilla wow with all my friends O.O
best raids, best content, bar none, if there was a vanilla wow server that was ran through blizzard i would sub to wow again in a heart beat.
On December 04 2011 23:18 7mk wrote: Meh, I think the oracle is worst of all
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
rofl youre not making sense. Lets assume that cloud was a "bad" player, then theres still no double standard about it, it would just support that his opinion is true.
On December 04 2011 20:25 dignitas.merz wrote:
On December 04 2011 09:25 7mk wrote:
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
How so? Assuming that the greedy build isnt something that is easily punishable, I really dont see how its underestimating someone. You take a bit of a risk so that you can play from an advantage, making it easier to play than on even ground, I dont think that means youre underestimating your opponent in the slightest. Playing safe on the other hand can mean that you think youre fine as long as you dont get caught off guard, then youre gonna outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game.
Our definitions of greedy differs then. Greedy for me is something that will be easily punishable by blind all-ins and such. You don't want to play like that vs someone you feel you can beat if you can take it to the mid to late game. Doing so, to me, feels a bit ignorant and you are just underestimating your opponents ability to punish your greedyness early on.
yes by blind all ins, thats the thing. I dont think thats underestimating, because its not really decided by skill what build you decide to go for right when the game starts. Its not so much about ability but rather about luck/chance, unless its a greedy build that can just always be punished after it's scouted, but then its just a bad build. Or if someone just goes for a greedy build every game, thats kinda relying on your opponent to be stupid and not adapt, but thats not what im talking about. I didnt wanna focus just on greedy builds though, but rather on the importance of mixing it up, of being unpredictable. HerO did a nice job of that in the Dreamhack finals for example. If you instead just go for the safest build every time against a certain opponent, then to me that is underestimating your opponent. And your "someone you feel you can beat if you can take it to the mid to late game" is that exact kind of underestimating (unless of course you really just are that much better than ur opponent).
On December 04 2011 23:32 fabiano wrote: I agree with cloud.
IdrA seems to be pretty clear on what he thinks about SC2 (stupid game, only switched because its easier to make money than BW, etc).
Tasteless seems worn out with SC2 when I see him casting (he looks kinda bored), but he looks so excited when I saw his new BW castings on Arirang.
Artosis "nerdchills" also seems kinda forced (something normal happens -> nerdchills).
Sure artosis exaggerates a lot, he always has, ("his life is a hyperbole" .. i dont know where I got this quote from but it just came to mind,maybe from sotg ) but I think hes pretty damn passionate about the game.
E-sports has spectators and we are what the content is directed toward. That is why casters are more popular than players in a lot of cases and that is why the game is the way it is. And I am not talking about graphics, sure the higher resolution makes people more receptive to SC2 than BW, but honestly they want the underdog to be able to win because it makes for better stories than the same person winning over and over. The fact that it is not a team sport actually makes that more important because what would be the point of competing if you know who is going to win. I know people like to talk about the integrity of the competition, but your playing for tons of money that there because of the viewers, if you want a more pure test of raw skill find other people who don't care about the money and lobby for a new game.
On December 04 2011 23:18 7mk wrote: Meh, I think the oracle is worst of all
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
rofl youre not making sense. Lets assume that cloud was a "bad" player, then theres still no double standard about it, it would just support that his opinion is true.
On December 04 2011 20:25 dignitas.merz wrote:
On December 04 2011 09:25 7mk wrote:
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
How so? Assuming that the greedy build isnt something that is easily punishable, I really dont see how its underestimating someone. You take a bit of a risk so that you can play from an advantage, making it easier to play than on even ground, I dont think that means youre underestimating your opponent in the slightest. Playing safe on the other hand can mean that you think youre fine as long as you dont get caught off guard, then youre gonna outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game.
Our definitions of greedy differs then. Greedy for me is something that will be easily punishable by blind all-ins and such. You don't want to play like that vs someone you feel you can beat if you can take it to the mid to late game. Doing so, to me, feels a bit ignorant and you are just underestimating your opponents ability to punish your greedyness early on.
yes by blind all ins, thats the thing. I dont think thats underestimating, because its not really decided by skill what build you decide to go for right when the game starts. Its not so much about ability but rather about luck/chance, unless its a greedy build that can just always be punished after it's scouted, but then its just a bad build. Or if someone just goes for a greedy build every game, thats kinda relying on your opponent to be stupid and not adapt, but thats not what im talking about. I didnt wanna focus just on greedy builds though, but rather on the importance of mixing it up, of being unpredictable. HerO did a nice job of that in the Dreamhack finals for example. If you instead just go for the safest build every time against a certain opponent, then to me that is underestimating your opponent. And your "someone you feel you can beat if you can take it to the mid to late game" is that exact kind of underestimating (unless of course you really just are that much better than ur opponent).
If you play 100% standard every game, then you will never get any build order win, but neigher any build order loss. You will only win if oyur mechanics are better than your opponent. This is IMO the best way to learn to get better, though in tournaments i think most ppl will agree that doing an allin or playing greedy once in a while is pretty smart.
I think we can all look to Idra's blog post if we want to get a sense of how Cloud's comment stacks up in comparison with his relative level of skill at the game. Granted, that was written back when they were BW players, but it makes for an interesting read anyways, and it's also notably funny that it's his ONLY blog entry in the whole time he's been here, and he calls Cloud out by name in the first paragraph.
I don't get why all these pro's whine about a possible imbalance. Why does it matter so much for them how well the game is balanced?? There is a good chance the race they are playing will be perfectly competetive and if it's really that bad they can always switch for a moment. Some games had their best competition during a time of imbalance and it generally doesn't affect the pro scene that much. Was GSL really that worse for the pro's when it was terran dominated? The general public can be affected by imbalance because it decreases the fun for them but I don't see why pro's need to whine about it that much, who blames them if they simply choose to play what they think is the strongest race?? Also it's ludicrous to think the expansion will take as long to balance as the original game. First of all the amount of changes is much less compared to introducing an entire new game and many aspects like maps will probably be much better from the get go whereas sc2 WoL also had those issues. Besides that the game changes brought in HotS mostly affect units that are not made really early, the standard units for each race (marine/marauder, zealot/stalker, ling/roach) don't seem to get any changes to the initial framework will stay the same... The amount of 'broken' builds with HoTs will be MUCH and MUCH less then with WoL because there simply aren't many new rush builds available.. the new units only enter the game late. Lategame units rarely affect balance much so I don't see why people are so afraid HoTs will change balance completely..
Cloud's comment is completely ludicrous as well it's just another one of those whine arguments like Idra and Lucifron used to make too, which basically boils down to this: people much worse then me (in my opinion) are doing better then me, ergo the game must be flawed. Pathetic whining for a 'pro' player. Gambling will never give a player consistent results and if it does it is no longer called gambling.. It means those players then have a certain read on players allowing them to do well.. It's incredibly annoying to hear idiots try to decide for everyone what skill should consist off and what parts are luck..
Also the article itself is biased I think, lines like this: "With a general consensus of negativity surrounding Heart Of The Swarm, could this mean a stutter in the rise of e-sports?" are annoying to read as it doesn't reflect what the players said at all. It's just the writer's own opinion disguised as 'the general consensus' of the pro's. It's bad journalism to conclude with that kind of sentences..
On December 05 2011 00:03 Raygun wrote: I wish there were more players like Cloud that speak their minds so frankly about the game. Agree or disagree, it's very refreshing to read.
The problem is not that people speak their minds. Under normal circumstances, that's good. But eSports is like a greedy, economic, macro-oriented build: it's fragile, dangerous, and easy to irreparably damage or kill, but, if unpunished, it will develop into an unstoppable midgame.
I guess the easier, more accurate way of saying this is, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
On December 04 2011 23:53 AutomatonOmega wrote: I think we can all look to Idra's blog post if we want to get a sense of how Cloud's comment stacks up in comparison with his relative level of skill at the game. Granted, that was written back when they were BW players, but it makes for an interesting read anyways, and it's also notably funny that it's his ONLY blog entry in the whole time he's been here, and he calls Cloud out by name in the first paragraph.
That blog was a troll written by Incontrol to make fun of the fact USA got destroyed in USA vs EU before Blizzcon and Idra got mad as fuck shaking with anger while losing. And it was actually Incontrol's finest creation on TL I would say.
Here is a preview: Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
Funny Cloud should say that, as he is one of those players, and really isn't good enough to talk down on people.
I do agree that it'll be a total balance mess though, I can already foresee some of the abusable tactics, maybe with enough beta testing it'll be OK though.
On December 04 2011 23:56 Markwerf wrote: I don't get why all these pro's whine about a possible imbalance. Why does it matter so much for them how well the game is balanced?? There is a good chance the race they are playing will be perfectly competetive and if it's really that bad they can always switch for a moment. Some games had their best competition during a time of imbalance and it generally doesn't affect the pro scene that much. Was GSL really that worse for the pro's when it was terran dominated? The general public can be affected by imbalance because it decreases the fun for them but I don't see why pro's need to whine about it that much, who blames them if they simply choose to play what they think is the strongest race??
???
Think about it. If your livelihood depends on this game like the pros do, wouldn't you care if the race you picked arbitrarily beforehand had blatant disadvantages? I'm not saying that's the case, in fact balance should definitely not be decided by pros who's lives depend on the balance of 1 race.
Most pros probably don't play for the money alone, they play because they like gaming and happen to be good at it, enough to make money out of it. Everyone have their style of play, so it's not as simple as "switch races then fool".
The game thrives on the premise of having 3 balanced yet different factions, if only 1 race dominates of course it's bad for both the pros who happen to not play the "good" race and the players who cheers for them.
What games have a healthy pro scene while having glaring imbalance?? I bet you that none of them can achieve even a tiny fraction of Starcraft's popularity.
I find it a bit disturbing how easily people dismiss any negative comments outright, saying that Cloud is "a baby" or not good enough to comment, or "it's too early to comment."
There is a slew of valid complaints about what Blizzard has chosen to show from HotS, and I for one am happy that some players have the guts to say what they really think of it.
@ "It's not done yet" argument - this is the worst point you can make. I noticed people invoke this argument whenever anyone says anything negative, and yet hypocritically it is seldom invoked by those very same people when anyone is gushing over Blizzard/HotS.
The reality is that Blizzard showed us its current plans for HotS. Some people like it, but why is it so hard to accept that some people hate it? Many of the points are valid, too, because of how Dustin Browder and David Kim explained their thought process.
One major, and relatively objective argument that is free from emotion (no 'butthurt') is that the balance team is creating units with very narrow roles, and also have shown that they are simply not aware of the real issues that have been resonating throughout the community over the last year. Blizzard has proposed units which completely misunderstand the problems pointed out by the pro community, and instead solves another set of cases which never really were problematic.
I expected better, even for this stage of development, and it shouldn't be that hard to see why (be honest). I do understand why some people like it though. Just as that does not shock me, do not be shocked that it's actually possible for Blizzard to make some wrong moves.
On December 04 2011 23:19 Hider wrote: Lol ppl dont want hots to come out soon?
Tvp is abosllutely broken. Boring matchup and way too easy for mediocore toss players to win. At hots both races will require a lot of skill to win, and terran will be able to use mech .
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote: Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
This is very true. I don't think people understand the level of contempt ex-BW players have for SC2, and that includes pretty much all of the most successful progamers and casters.
People keep their mouths shut because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, and SC2 is feeding them right now. Idra coming out and venting to the community about how laughable the game is for high level esports competition is only going to hurt him, for Day9 it'd damn near end his career and sever relationships he has with Blizzard. I think if Day9 started giving his 100% honest opinions of SC2 tomorrow, it might cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings. Any caster, speaking honestly about SC2 would simply end their career.
You get glimpses of it occasionally, like Idra venting on his stream after losing to a dice throw, or inControl in this interview, but even in those examples these guys are really holding back. All these guys could write a 10,000-word thesis on how and why SC2 is really poorly designed for competitive play.
For weeks, maybe even months after the game came out, you couldn't even discuss it on TL. I saw them deleting posts and temp banning anyone who criticized SC2 in any way, and it was happening left and right. I don't think we'll really see much open criticism of the game from the people who know it best until the money dries up, and by then maybe we still won't just because nobody cares anymore.
On December 05 2011 03:39 Brotocol wrote: I find it a bit disturbing how easily people dismiss any negative comments outright, saying that Cloud is "a baby" or not good enough to comment, or "it's too early to comment."
and what would you suggest then? youre on a sc forum. you can either give up like cloud, in which case you shouldnt be posting at all. or you could hope that blizzard completely changes their mind and the direction in which they are taking the game, which is unlikely.
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote: Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
This is very true. I don't think people understand the level of contempt ex-BW players have for SC2, and that includes pretty much all of the most successful progamers and casters.
People keep their mouths shut because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, and SC2 is feeding them right now. Idra coming out and venting to the community about how laughable the game is for high level esports competition is only going to hurt him, for Day9 it'd damn near end his career and sever relationships he has with Blizzard. I think if Day9 started giving his 100% honest opinions of SC2 tomorrow, it might cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings. Any caster, speaking honestly about SC2 would simply end their career.
You get glimpses of it occasionally, like Idra venting on his stream after losing to a dice throw, or inControl in this interview, but even in those examples these guys are really holding back. All these guys could write a 10,000-word thesis on how and why SC2 is really poorly designed for competitive play.
For weeks, maybe even months after the game came out, you couldn't even discuss it on TL. I saw them deleting posts and temp banning anyone who criticized SC2 in any way, and it was happening left and right. I don't think we'll really see much open criticism of the game from the people who know it best until the money dries up, and by then maybe we still won't just because nobody cares anymore.
I agree with what you say about not criticizing SC2 too much. day9 gives insight on the game a lot on SotG, but at times, you can tell that what he says is pretty tamed compared to someone like IdrA.
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote: Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
This is very true. I don't think people understand the level of contempt ex-BW players have for SC2, and that includes pretty much all of the most successful progamers and casters.
People keep their mouths shut because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, and SC2 is feeding them right now. Idra coming out and venting to the community about how laughable the game is for high level esports competition is only going to hurt him, for Day9 it'd damn near end his career and sever relationships he has with Blizzard. I think if Day9 started giving his 100% honest opinions of SC2 tomorrow, it might cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings. Any caster, speaking honestly about SC2 would simply end their career.
You get glimpses of it occasionally, like Idra venting on his stream after losing to a dice throw, or inControl in this interview, but even in those examples these guys are really holding back. All these guys could write a 10,000-word thesis on how and why SC2 is really poorly designed for competitive play.
For weeks, maybe even months after the game came out, you couldn't even discuss it on TL. I saw them deleting posts and temp banning anyone who criticized SC2 in any way, and it was happening left and right. I don't think we'll really see much open criticism of the game from the people who know it best until the money dries up, and by then maybe we still won't just because nobody cares anymore.
it really is adorable how you extrapolate the frustration of a few well-known figures to the entire community with no reasoning whatsoever. the "hand that feeds them"? I don't think you understand that concept quite as well as you think you do, nor the consequences for people speaking their minds (is blizzard a dictatorship?). idra does it all the time free of any consequence, day9's career is separate from his opinions on the game and he's far too professional to bother bridging that gap for any reason. again, the logical following from not speaking -----> pent-up frustration is a joke, this post is a joke, and people like you trying desperately to put unspoken words in others' mouths for the sake of causing drama hurts e-sports far more than any perceived dislike of the game balance that C-class players like Cloud might have for a game that frustrates them because of their inability to succeed at it.
Well Day9 is no joke, there was a time in Brood War when he was the best Zerg in North America and maybe the best player in North America period. He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
That's really my only basis for speculating that Day9 probably shares these frustrations (despite never showing it).
The SC2 community is great, and the events are a lot of fun mostly thanks to people like Day9, but the game of SC2 itself has a very low skill ceiling and a lot of coins get flipped. The actual gameplay is far less compelling than what we used to have in BW, both as a player and as a spectator.
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote: Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
This is very true. I don't think people understand the level of contempt ex-BW players have for SC2, and that includes pretty much all of the most successful progamers and casters.
People keep their mouths shut because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, and SC2 is feeding them right now. Idra coming out and venting to the community about how laughable the game is for high level esports competition is only going to hurt him, for Day9 it'd damn near end his career and sever relationships he has with Blizzard. I think if Day9 started giving his 100% honest opinions of SC2 tomorrow, it might cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings. Any caster, speaking honestly about SC2 would simply end their career.
You get glimpses of it occasionally, like Idra venting on his stream after losing to a dice throw, or inControl in this interview, but even in those examples these guys are really holding back. All these guys could write a 10,000-word thesis on how and why SC2 is really poorly designed for competitive play.
For weeks, maybe even months after the game came out, you couldn't even discuss it on TL. I saw them deleting posts and temp banning anyone who criticized SC2 in any way, and it was happening left and right. I don't think we'll really see much open criticism of the game from the people who know it best until the money dries up, and by then maybe we still won't just because nobody cares anymore.
Lol incontrol was parodying idrA bitching about the game. I don't think he actually has a serious problem with the game.
On December 05 2011 07:17 ch72105 wrote: Well Day9 is no joke, there was a time in Brood War when he was the best Zerg in North America and maybe the best player in North America period. He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
That's really my only basis for speculating that Day9 probably shares these frustrations (despite never showing it).
The SC2 community is great, and the events are a lot of fun mostly thanks to people like Day9, but the game of SC2 itself has a very low skill ceiling and a lot of coins get flipped. The actual gameplay is far less compelling than what we used to have in BW, both as a player and as a spectator.
you're kidding me, right? "you can't argue with me, because if you don't share our opinion you aren't in on the pro RTS scene, and you wouldn't want that label!" also, why are you equating yourself with professional players, random TL poster?
you don't get to make blanket statements like the bolded without offering something of worth to support that proposition. as you've offered nothing but rabid, rose-colored glasses style fanboism, I guess we'll just have to let the professionals figure out where they stand for themselves without ridiculous pseudo-arguments like these.
The problem with the term "coin flippy" is that it implied there is no skill involved. I flip a coin, head i win, tails i lose. no skill, just luck.
The implication that skill isn't a factor is BS. If you ignore the cheesy openings, any game that lasts longer than 10 minutes is less and less of a "coin flip" and more and more about the skill of the players. Yes, some cheesy "coin flip" openings can get you wins, though sometimes they don't even work (proxy 2 gate in your main huk? pffft, no worries, i got probes man!) but not longterm success.
On December 05 2011 07:17 ch72105 wrote: Well Day9 is no joke, there was a time in Brood War when he was the best Zerg in North America and maybe the best player in North America period. He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
That's really my only basis for speculating that Day9 probably shares these frustrations (despite never showing it).
The SC2 community is great, and the events are a lot of fun mostly thanks to people like Day9, but the game of SC2 itself has a very low skill ceiling and a lot of coins get flipped. The actual gameplay is far less compelling than what we used to have in BW, both as a player and as a spectator.
you're kidding me, right? "you can't argue with me, because if you don't share our opinion you aren't in on the pro RTS scene, and you wouldn't want that label!" also, why are you equating yourself with professional players, random TL poster?
you don't get to make blanket statements like the bolded without offering something of worth to support that proposition. as you've offered nothing but rabid, rose-colored glasses style fanboism, I guess we'll just have to let the professionals figure out where they stand for themselves without ridiculous pseudo-arguments like these.
Theexile, I don't mean to sound rude, but ch72105 is no random TL poster. He was in clan x17, a PROFESSIONAL useast clan in BW. He knows what he is talking about. I mean he''s probably even played with lzgamer before.
man gotta agree with some of what cloud said first of all sc2 is more battle based and its extremely hard to make a comeback due to broodwar due to map size and stuff also a lot of ppl can win just by gambling with random strategy or hard counters = ez win. also in broodwar, all race are rly balanced through out early, mid and late game. however in sc2, late game protoss is almost unbeatable since they can reinforce instantly at battle location with warp gate unlike other race which has to walk across. chrono boost also faciliates reinforcement of high tech units which takes a long time to build also warp prism basiclly bypass ur defence as i have lost 3 games in which i had bunker at front and he just warp in sentry and zealots in my base and ff the ramp and stuff >< PS: i am top 15 master terran
On December 05 2011 07:17 ch72105 wrote: Well Day9 is no joke, there was a time in Brood War when he was the best Zerg in North America and maybe the best player in North America period. He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
That's really my only basis for speculating that Day9 probably shares these frustrations (despite never showing it).
The SC2 community is great, and the events are a lot of fun mostly thanks to people like Day9, but the game of SC2 itself has a very low skill ceiling and a lot of coins get flipped. The actual gameplay is far less compelling than what we used to have in BW, both as a player and as a spectator.
you're kidding me, right? "you can't argue with me, because if you don't share our opinion you aren't in on the pro RTS scene, and you wouldn't want that label!" also, why are you equating yourself with professional players, random TL poster?
you don't get to make blanket statements like the bolded without offering something of worth to support that proposition. as you've offered nothing but rabid, rose-colored glasses style fanboism, I guess we'll just have to let the professionals figure out where they stand for themselves without ridiculous pseudo-arguments like these.
Theexile, I don't mean to sound rude, but ch72105 is no random TL poster. He was in clan x17, a PROFESSIONAL useast clan in BW. He knows what he is talking about. I mean he''s probably even played with lzgamer before.
:/ my fault for BM'ing him then. I still don't really agree with the lack of showing his work, but the lack of post count threw me off. you can also infer I wasn't really into BW.
On December 05 2011 07:17 ch72105 wrote: Well Day9 is no joke, there was a time in Brood War when he was the best Zerg in North America and maybe the best player in North America period. He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
That's really my only basis for speculating that Day9 probably shares these frustrations (despite never showing it).
The SC2 community is great, and the events are a lot of fun mostly thanks to people like Day9, but the game of SC2 itself has a very low skill ceiling and a lot of coins get flipped. The actual gameplay is far less compelling than what we used to have in BW, both as a player and as a spectator.
Lol, you need to read what Nazgul said about Day 9, plz stop thinking he's some kind of hidden god.
Day9 probably does believe what he says about SC2 - that the bad/stupid parts are an effect of the game not being figured out enough and/or players not being good enough; and that complaining about balance is ultimately futile, as trying to improve or figure out new stuff will always yield more benefits. I would be really surprised if he hides his true opinion of the game, even if doing so is clearly beneficial to him. On the other hand, he is very capable of producing false hype, as his Skyrim livestream showed, so I guess it's possible.
As for his understanding of the game, he obviously has a good handle on RTS gameplay theory in general - this is what his dailies are all about, and it's why so many of his fans value his insight. However, at least judging from his casts, he doesn't understand SC2 specifically all that well, from the perspective of a mid Masters player who only keeps up with the big tournaments. The point at which I began to notice this was during an MLG, when he was casting a game between Sjow and Bomber on Testbug, and kept saying how Banshees can shoot at the natural from above the cliff without being seen. This is obviously false, as anyone who plays SC2 semi-regularly should know - air units become visible when they attack, no matter their position. Funnily enough, Day9 persisted in his opinion, and when the players refused to do what he advised, he essentially labelled them ignorant, arrogantly declaring "you gotta know how Starcraft 2 works!". Gotta know, indeed.
Similarly, in that debate with Idra on SotG, he just kept repeating the same generalities, without addressing Idra's point (which was very specific) at all. Idra was perfectly correct in his assertion, that if there is no safe build capable of dealing with everything, and no means to scout at critical timings, then the game becomes a coinflip. And indeed, I firmly believe it is a coinflip in some situations, and can direct anyone interested to a game where Nestea lost after not being able to scout and blindly choosing the wrong response to an all-in. But Day9 would never accept such a thing, he'd claim there could possibly be a way without specifying what it is.
On December 04 2011 23:53 AutomatonOmega wrote: I think we can all look to Idra's blog post if we want to get a sense of how Cloud's comment stacks up in comparison with his relative level of skill at the game. Granted, that was written back when they were BW players, but it makes for an interesting read anyways, and it's also notably funny that it's his ONLY blog entry in the whole time he's been here, and he calls Cloud out by name in the first paragraph.
That blog was a troll written by Incontrol to make fun of the fact USA got destroyed in USA vs EU before Blizzcon and Idra got mad as fuck shaking with anger while losing. And it was actually Incontrol's finest creation on TL I would say.
Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that, haha. Thx for the heads up cloud lol.
On December 05 2011 09:59 Koshi wrote: WoL keeps getting better each day. If you look at players like Leenock, MVP and HerO then you know how good WoL could become.
And all good that was created in WoL will be partially destroyed with HotS, and after 2 years when HotS finally becomes stable then LotV destroys it all over again.
And who knows if we wont see Starcraft 3 few years later....
On December 05 2011 07:17 ch72105 wrote: Well Day9 is no joke, there was a time in Brood War when he was the best Zerg in North America and maybe the best player in North America period. He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
That's really my only basis for speculating that Day9 probably shares these frustrations (despite never showing it).
The SC2 community is great, and the events are a lot of fun mostly thanks to people like Day9, but the game of SC2 itself has a very low skill ceiling and a lot of coins get flipped. The actual gameplay is far less compelling than what we used to have in BW, both as a player and as a spectator.
Lol, you need to read what Nazgul said about Day 9, plz stop thinking he's some kind of hidden god.
On December 05 2011 09:59 Koshi wrote: WoL keeps getting better each day. If you look at players like Leenock, MVP and HerO then you know how good WoL could become.
And all good that was created in WoL will be partially destroyed with HotS, and after 2 years when HotS finally becomes stable then LotV destroys it all over again.
And who knows if we wont see Starcraft 3 few years later....
Hopefully, if Blizzard does it right, HOTS will add more good to WOL in the long run.
It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote: Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
This is very true. I don't think people understand the level of contempt ex-BW players have for SC2, and that includes pretty much all of the most successful progamers and casters.
People keep their mouths shut because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, and SC2 is feeding them right now. Idra coming out and venting to the community about how laughable the game is for high level esports competition is only going to hurt him, for Day9 it'd damn near end his career and sever relationships he has with Blizzard. I think if Day9 started giving his 100% honest opinions of SC2 tomorrow, it might cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings. Any caster, speaking honestly about SC2 would simply end their career.
You get glimpses of it occasionally, like Idra venting on his stream after losing to a dice throw, or inControl in this interview, but even in those examples these guys are really holding back. All these guys could write a 10,000-word thesis on how and why SC2 is really poorly designed for competitive play.
For weeks, maybe even months after the game came out, you couldn't even discuss it on TL. I saw them deleting posts and temp banning anyone who criticized SC2 in any way, and it was happening left and right. I don't think we'll really see much open criticism of the game from the people who know it best until the money dries up, and by then maybe we still won't just because nobody cares anymore.
I am unimpressed with this argument. When SC2 came out people compared it to BW, which is fine. But you cannot expect any game to have the same level of depth as one that has been around for over a decade. If Chess 2, came out tomorrow, it would be nothing compared to Chess classic when it came to depth and history. For the first year or two scrubby players are going to win against players with coin flip builds. It is bound to happen and a natural progression of any game. It is easier to abuse an aspect than it is to figure out a way to deal with it.
I did not read the threads about how much SC 2 sucks on TL. But judging by the crap that gets closed on a daily basis, I am sure it had less to do with the topic and more to do with the content and thought put into the post. I am sure Day9 and everyone else is playing SC 2 because they love it. Day9 did the daily for free for quite a long time while he was in school, spending an hour each night trying to speed everyone along on the path to being better at Starcraft 2. I don't think Incontrol or Artosis or Idra would like to go back to BW. They want to figure this game out and they want to be on the ones to do it.
But maybe your right. Maybe all the ex brood war pros hate SC2 with the fire of a nova. Maybe they feel bad for their fans for cheering for such a horrible game and wish that SC2 was really BW with better graphics. Maybe Day9 cries into his hands every night because what his life has become. Maybe it's all a lie and TL is just riding the wave because Blizzard told them to.
But I doubt it. Maybe there are a bunch of people looking back on the days of BW, remembering how amazing the game was and glossing over the parts where they lost to scubby players doing an abusive build.
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote: Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
This is very true. I don't think people understand the level of contempt ex-BW players have for SC2, and that includes pretty much all of the most successful progamers and casters.
Wow Mr 3-posts-on-tl way to speak for that many people with zero data to support it. The debate is over guys, this guy speaks for all of the most successful progamers, the casters and a good chunk of the entire player community.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I've never played bw. I'm master sc2 player, and recently played sc2 bw maps and watched some pro league. Sc bw is so freaking superior to sc2, it's not even funny. I repeat: i'm not a bw fanboy, in fact i'm more a sc2 fanboy, but even the "sc2 bw" maps have so much better micro mechanics than sc2.
I agree with cloud. After watching in bw maps, how better sc2 could have been. Sc2 is an amazing game, but the mechanics and balance design is totally flawed.
That's what I've been talking about, you guys. Why aren't we embracing the custom "sc2 bw" map?
There is just so much talk about how BW is superior and SC2 inferior. All it takes is one person to ignite this idea of the SC2 BW custom map, embrace, spread it like wildfire, and soon the tourneys will follow the custom map, instead of the flawed default SC2.
It is completely the most perfect compromise and I am really disappointed to see so few people here acknowledge that simple, basic fact. BW in an SC2 engine. Can we please just spread the word and make it happen?
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
and we saw a 2 port banshee from Jjakji in the most recent GSL finals on the SAME map and leenock owned it. What? you just expecting people wouldn't adapt and learn how to better counter things? well it's clear players are getting better and better, just look at the quality of games from Nov GSL 2010 and Nov GSL 2011. Even MLG and DH then and now is a stark contrast.
and how would the transition from SC1 -> BW be any different from WoL -> HotS? Maybe you are forgetting that BW brought a ton of imbalances as well and was never truly stable until quite some time. If stability is something you want right now, then you're missing the point. The instability is what creates legends, would a player like Bisu have been so revolutionary if the game was already stabilized in PvZ? fuck no. SC2 is going to go through the same process and if we have to wait 10 years for legacy of the void to finally be stabilized then the game will be better for it.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
Throw me a link, I'd love to see it. It took a longgg while in BW to figure out what builds were capable of what and what the best responses were. It's entirely possible that 4 months from now you'd have to make a fatal flaw to die to a tech cheese like that.
On December 05 2011 12:47 emc wrote: and we saw a 2 port banshee from Jjakji in the most recent GSL finals on the SAME map and leenock owned it. What? you just expecting people wouldn't adapt and learn how to better counter things? well it's clear players are getting better and better, just look at the quality of games from Nov GSL 2010 and Nov GSL 2011. Even MLG and DH then and now is a stark contrast.
and how would the transition from SC1 -> BW be any different from WoL -> HotS? Maybe you are forgetting that BW brought a ton of imbalances as well and was never truly stable until quite some time. If stability is something you want right now, then you're missing the point. The instability is what creates legends, would a player like Bisu have been so revolutionary if the game was already stabilized in PvZ? fuck no. SC2 is going to go through the same process and if we have to wait 10 years for legacy of the void to finally be stabilized then the game will be better for it.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
and we saw a 2 port banshee from Jjakji in the most recent GSL finals on the SAME map and leenock owned it. What? you just expecting people wouldn't adapt and learn how to better counter things? well it's clear players are getting better and better, just look at the quality of games from Nov GSL 2010 and Nov GSL 2011. Even MLG and DH then and now is a stark contrast.
and how would the transition from SC1 -> BW be any different from WoL -> HotS? Maybe you are forgetting that BW brought a ton of imbalances as well and was never truly stable until quite some time. If stability is something you want right now, then you're missing the point. The instability is what creates legends, would a player like Bisu have been so revolutionary if the game was already stabilized in PvZ? fuck no. SC2 is going to go through the same process and if we have to wait 10 years for legacy of the void to finally be stabilized then the game will be better for it.
I say good job to Leenock for guessing correctly (or maybe Jjakji let him scout it, haven't seen that game). How exactly does this counter my argument?
Also, what transition from SC1 to BW? There was no professional vanilla SC1 play. There was no transition. It took a few years from BW's release before it even took off in Korea. I'm not sure if you even know what you're talking about, honestly. How can you even consider imbalances that BW introduced, when the only thing one needed to do to win in vanilla SC1 was making Mutalisks?
And yes, the reason Bisu was so revolutionary was because the game was stable, or at least that's what everyone thought. Do you really want a repeat of the first 6 months of SC2, with games rarely going past 1 base vs 1 base, and more 5 rax reaper or proxy Void Rays randomly killing better players? If so, congratulations, you're Dustin Browder's target audience.
On December 05 2011 12:40 Toadvine wrote: Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
When referring to Blizzard phrases like "imbalanced crap the threw into" , "basic design problems" seem to indicate you believe Blizzard is incompetent. This is false. Blizzard is a solid company with a proven track record for creating quality entertainment software. Your post is far off base.
Name me 1 RTS game made since 1995 with diverse factions taht was balanced at teh top level at launch. By definition every RTS game made has been imbalanced upon release. No one has been able to do this with diverse factions. If both factions are identical balancing is easy.
So when a new RTS is released by any company or modified by teh addition of 1 or more new units per faction then expect an unstable period where the game must be balanced while players skill with the new units are improving.
There is a MOD kit and if you believe this balancing and design is a trivial problem then solve it with your own game design. Blizzard will hire you on the spot
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I've never played bw. I'm master sc2 player, and recently played sc2 bw maps and watched some pro league. Sc bw is so freaking superior to sc2, it's not even funny. I repeat: i'm not a bw fanboy, in fact i'm more a sc2 fanboy, but even the "sc2 bw" maps have so much better micro mechanics than sc2.
I agree with cloud. After watching in bw maps, how better sc2 could have been. Sc2 is an amazing game, but the mechanics and balance design is totally flawed.
That's what I've been talking about, you guys. Why aren't we embracing the custom "sc2 bw" map?
There is just so much talk about how BW is superior and SC2 inferior. All it takes is one person to ignite this idea of the SC2 BW custom map, embrace, spread it like wildfire, and soon the tourneys will follow the custom map, instead of the flawed default SC2.
It is completely the most perfect compromise and I am really disappointed to see so few people here acknowledge that simple, basic fact. BW in an SC2 engine. Can we please just spread the word and make it happen?
It's actually the worst possible compromise you could think of. You'd just alienate casuals and the whole ladder. You might as well just play bw. And sc2bw plays a lot differently than bw due to the AI and other issues.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
Please name 3 of these scrubs that "plays 3-5 hours a day in master league" that can consistently compete with "a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game". There's a difference between occasionally taking a game off a player and actually being able to compete. This difference is the reason why we see the same names over and over again winning and making it to the brackets in tournaments even when they are open.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
and we saw a 2 port banshee from Jjakji in the most recent GSL finals on the SAME map and leenock owned it. What? you just expecting people wouldn't adapt and learn how to better counter things? well it's clear players are getting better and better, just look at the quality of games from Nov GSL 2010 and Nov GSL 2011. Even MLG and DH then and now is a stark contrast.
and how would the transition from SC1 -> BW be any different from WoL -> HotS? Maybe you are forgetting that BW brought a ton of imbalances as well and was never truly stable until quite some time. If stability is something you want right now, then you're missing the point. The instability is what creates legends, would a player like Bisu have been so revolutionary if the game was already stabilized in PvZ? fuck no. SC2 is going to go through the same process and if we have to wait 10 years for legacy of the void to finally be stabilized then the game will be better for it.
I say good job to Leenock for guessing correctly (or maybe Jjakji let him scout it, haven't seen that game). How exactly does this counter my argument?
Also, what transition from SC1 to BW? There was no professional vanilla SC1 play. There was no transition. It took a few years from BW's release before it even took off in Korea. I'm not sure if you even know what you're talking about, honestly. How can you even consider imbalances that BW introduced, when the only thing one needed to do to win in vanilla SC1 was making Mutalisks?
And yes, the reason Bisu was so revolutionary was because the game was stable, or at least that's what everyone thought. Do you really want a repeat of the first 6 months of SC2, with games rarely going past 1 base vs 1 base, and more 5 rax reaper or proxy Void Rays randomly killing better players? If so, congratulations, you're Dustin Browder's target audience.
yeah, like players are just going to forget how to play SC2... You really think all of what's happened in SC2 this past year is going to get thrown out the window? I highly doubt 1 base play will be at all viable, even with new units and abilities, you don't just forget how to defend all-ins or play the game.
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
On December 05 2011 12:40 Toadvine wrote: Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
When referring to Blizzard phrases like "imbalanced crap the threw into" , "basic design problems" seem to indicate you believe Blizzard is incompetent. This is false. Blizzard is a solid company with a proven track record for creating quality entertainment software. Your post is far off base.
Name me 1 RTS game made since 1995 with diverse factions taht was balanced at teh top level at launch. By definition every RTS game made has been imbalanced upon release. No one has been able to do this with diverse factions. If both factions are identical balancing is easy.
There is a MOD kit and if you believe this balancing and design is a trivial problem then solve it with your own game design. Blizzard will hire you on the spot
You know, the sad thing is that you're almost right. Blizzard was a pretty darned amazing videogame developer, up until about 2003, when they released TFT. But you know what happened then? They released WoW, and it became an instant hit. Until SC2 in 2010, they released nothing but WoW expansions. The simple truth, is that it's not the old Blizzard anymore. The lead designer for SC2, Dustin Browder, worked on C&C games before, and joined Blizzard in 2007 if I remember correctly.
Besides, they couldn't even balance WC3, which they made in their "good days" either, so there's really not much hope. And the information they've released so far on HotS and Diablo 3 really doesn't bode well. They're slowly removing themselves from the pedestal their old games put them on, as far as I'm concerned.
Lol @ Cloud going all Phil Hellmuth on SC2. I'd say try and keep it just a tad humble about your own skills until you start claiming you'd win GSL championships if not for the "randomness" of SC2.
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
Because it's different when you do something for money, versus doing it as a hobby. Sorry but it really isn't our place to tell someone else how to live their life.
The moment your very livelihood depends upon you being able to perform, is the moment that it is no longer "fun". It is stressful, time consuming, and all the negatives that go with just about anything you choose do do for a living.
We cannot fathom how it feels to be under the gun to do or die in a videogame. If you don't win, you don't eat. And then suddenly you are hit by an MC-level 4 gate, and you fail to hold.
And you don't have to be "best in the world" to make a living from this game. You can find your niche doing SC2-related things.
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
Just like Ryan Fitzpatrick will never have a worse game than Tom Brady, right?
The mechanical demand needed to play SC:BW at a high level exists only because there are players SO GOOD that they have set the bar for play at that level. SC2's problem is that its pros have yet to set any sort of mechanical bar, because they can't consistently maintain their dominant mechanics.
The more mechanically sound player almost always wins in SC2, provided they make good decisions with the information at hand. SC2 pros are not at all consistent when it comes to their mechanics. They lose units, forget about units, have careless control, fail to control their third and fourth groups of units at the same time as their first and second, forget to build units, get supply blocked, fail to properly adjust their builds constantly. The issue isn't that there's an inherent low mechanical requirement to play SC2, it's that the current players are setting the bar too low by failing to be consistently awesome when it comes to mechanics.
On December 05 2011 07:17 ch72105 wrote: He understands competitive RTS very, very deeply, and the criticisms people like me and Cloud and Midas and Idra etc have for SC2 are criticisms that are almost universally shared by everyone with a deep understanding of competitive RTS.
People With A Deep Understanding of Competitive RTS: Cloud Midas Idra ch72105 etc.
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
Just like Ryan Fitzpatrick will never have a worse game than Tom Brady, right?
The mechanical demand needed to play SC:BW at a high level exists only because there are players SO GOOD that they have set the bar for play at that level. SC2's problem is that its pros have yet to set any sort of mechanical bar, because they can't consistently maintain their dominant mechanics.
The more mechanically sound player almost always wins in SC2, provided they make good decisions with the information at hand. SC2 pros are not at all consistent when it comes to their mechanics. They lose units, forget about units, have careless control, fail to control their third and fourth groups of units at the same time as their third, forget to build units, get supply blocked, fail to properly adjust their builds constantly. The issue isn't that there's an inherent low mechanical requirement to play SC2, it's that the current players are setting the bar too low by failing to be consistently awesome when it comes to mechanics.
Both are NFL players , sadly I don't watch american football , let's take jack nicklaus in his prime and pit you against him in a game of 18 holes , will you ever take a single game off him ? definitely not , the problem is like many have pointed and even you , sc2 is so volatile to the extend like you have mention simple mistakes will screw up your game , "forgetting to build units, get block,not splitting up your units , not getting that force field down and etc . Will kill you in the game and the same can be said for broodwar , screwing up your engagement because of bad tank position, leaving your high templar chilling in some mountain for recreation is a very smart thing to do .
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
Just like Ryan Fitzpatrick will never have a worse game than Tom Brady, right?
The mechanical demand needed to play SC:BW at a high level exists only because there are players SO GOOD that they have set the bar for play at that level. SC2's problem is that its pros have yet to set any sort of mechanical bar, because they can't consistently maintain their dominant mechanics.
The more mechanically sound player almost always wins in SC2, provided they make good decisions with the information at hand. SC2 pros are not at all consistent when it comes to their mechanics. They lose units, forget about units, have careless control, fail to control their third and fourth groups of units at the same time as their third, forget to build units, get supply blocked, fail to properly adjust their builds constantly. The issue isn't that there's an inherent low mechanical requirement to play SC2, it's that the current players are setting the bar too low by failing to be consistently awesome when it comes to mechanics.
Both are NFL players , sadly I don't watch american football , let's take jack nicklaus in his prime and pit you against him in a game of 18 holes , will you ever take a single game off him ? definitely not , the problem is like many have pointed and even you , sc2 is so volatile to the extend like you have mention simple mistakes will screw up your game , "forgetting to build units, get block,not splitting up your units , not getting that force field down and etc . Will kill you in the game and the same can be said for broodwar , screwing up your engagement because of bad tank position, leaving your high templar chilling in some mountain for recreation is a very smart thing to do .
My point is those are all things that are included in mechanical requirement... and our current pros haven't set the bar very high for that. The player who best manages everything on the field of play (you know... mechanical dominance) almost always wins, but that level of "best" is usually pretty low. As that bar rises, as it becomes more and more necessary to be able to properly handle simultaneously throwing a lot of shit at your appointment and handling the lot of shit thrown at you, the mechanical bar will rise to the point where it totally excludes amateur players as well.
So again, everything to do with the level of competition and not the inherent gameplay mechanical ceiling. The mechanical floor is a little higher, yes, but that really doesn't affect the ceiling.
Why are you behaving as if there isn't a difference in mechanical prowess between now and the beginning of BW comp?
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
On December 05 2011 13:17 Tenks wrote: Lol @ Cloud going all Phil Hellmuth on SC2. I'd say try and keep it just a tad humble about your own skills until you start claiming you'd win GSL championships if not for the "randomness" of SC2.
i mean, we do have the occasional silver player who thinks if he would be masters if it wasn't for cheese, or something of the sorts
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
I don't know... I'm really excited for the expansion.. Blizzard seems to always be having most of their -uber-units come in during their expansions. Like broodwar, frozen throne, etc.
Sure it will be hard to balance, but if they time it right it shouldn't influence the pro-scene too much.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
I think the point would be that you should be prepared to thrown down spores if the scouting info you're able to attain leaves a possibility of a quick 2-port banshee attack.
There being no way to deny your opponent information wouldn't be good game design, either.
Zergs punish greedy T/P players all the time for cutting corners. It's only fair that they can be punished for cutting corners as well.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
I think the point would be that you should be prepared to thrown down spores if the scouting info you're able to attain leaves a possibility of a quick 2-port banshee attack.
There being no way to deny your opponent information wouldn't be good game design, either.
Zergs punish greedy T/P players all the time for cutting corners. It's only fair that they can be punished for cutting corners as well.
You absolutely right here. I can't get how some people can not understand that...
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
On December 03 2011 06:35 wraggy1234 wrote: Hey guys,
I've gathered the opinions of players such as White-ra, iNcontrol, BlinG and others about the upcoming expansion Heart of the Swarm. You can have a look here:
Here is a preview: Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
Any feedback is welcome.
ps: apologies for my previous post with the lack of information in the OP, hope this is better.
Raiden
Cloud is a whiner...... also hes not that good so he cant really talk
[QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:43 Jimbo77 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:38 Bd.Snake wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:36 Jimbo77 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:33 Bd.Snake wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:31 Jimbo77 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:30 Bd.Snake wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 14:07 Jimbo77 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 12:40 Toadvine wrote: [QUOTE]On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.[/QUOTE]
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.[/QUOTE] It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not? [/QUOTE] The problem is zerg cannot scout it [/QUOTE] Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores? [/QUOTE] Because that isn't good game design your just guessing [/QUOTE] Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
[/QUOTE] its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out [/QUOTE] Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design. [/Q im talking in general i cant be bothered arguing with you anymore everything you say convinces me that you have very little experience playing rts That was a fail.
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
Just like Ryan Fitzpatrick will never have a worse game than Tom Brady, right?
The mechanical demand needed to play SC:BW at a high level exists only because there are players SO GOOD that they have set the bar for play at that level. SC2's problem is that its pros have yet to set any sort of mechanical bar, because they can't consistently maintain their dominant mechanics.
The more mechanically sound player almost always wins in SC2, provided they make good decisions with the information at hand. SC2 pros are not at all consistent when it comes to their mechanics. They lose units, forget about units, have careless control, fail to control their third and fourth groups of units at the same time as their first and second, forget to build units, get supply blocked, fail to properly adjust their builds constantly. The issue isn't that there's an inherent low mechanical requirement to play SC2, it's that the current players are setting the bar too low by failing to be consistently awesome when it comes to mechanics.
edited to correct a few statements
Not even close, why do people who don't even play BW try to argue. I could take the time and say why every single thing you said is wrong but it would take too long and i would have trouble holding back the laughter. But really please stop even trying to argue.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
and we saw a 2 port banshee from Jjakji in the most recent GSL finals on the SAME map and leenock owned it. What? you just expecting people wouldn't adapt and learn how to better counter things? well it's clear players are getting better and better, just look at the quality of games from Nov GSL 2010 and Nov GSL 2011. Even MLG and DH then and now is a stark contrast.
and how would the transition from SC1 -> BW be any different from WoL -> HotS? Maybe you are forgetting that BW brought a ton of imbalances as well and was never truly stable until quite some time. If stability is something you want right now, then you're missing the point. The instability is what creates legends, would a player like Bisu have been so revolutionary if the game was already stabilized in PvZ? fuck no. SC2 is going to go through the same process and if we have to wait 10 years for legacy of the void to finally be stabilized then the game will be better for it.
Also, what transition from SC1 to BW? There was no professional vanilla SC1 play. There was no transition. It took a few years from BW's release before it even took off in Korea. I'm not sure if you even know what you're talking about, honestly. How can you even consider imbalances that BW introduced, when the only thing one needed to do to win in vanilla SC1 was making Mutalisks?
This is so completely wrong. You won by making 150 mineral pools
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
Watch nestea vs ogstop on crossfire and youll know what i mean kthx
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
Just like Ryan Fitzpatrick will never have a worse game than Tom Brady, right?
The mechanical demand needed to play SC:BW at a high level exists only because there are players SO GOOD that they have set the bar for play at that level. SC2's problem is that its pros have yet to set any sort of mechanical bar, because they can't consistently maintain their dominant mechanics.
The more mechanically sound player almost always wins in SC2, provided they make good decisions with the information at hand. SC2 pros are not at all consistent when it comes to their mechanics. They lose units, forget about units, have careless control, fail to control their third and fourth groups of units at the same time as their first and second, forget to build units, get supply blocked, fail to properly adjust their builds constantly. The issue isn't that there's an inherent low mechanical requirement to play SC2, it's that the current players are setting the bar too low by failing to be consistently awesome when it comes to mechanics.
edited to correct a few statements
Not even close, why do people who don't even play BW try to argue. I could take the time and say why every single thing you said is wrong but it would take too long and i would have trouble holding back the laughter. But really please stop even trying to argue.
Yeah, no you couldn't.
You can watch any tournament and absolutely cringe at some of the blunders and choices that SC2 pros make, even in Finals.
The primary difference between BW and SC2 is that you need to play very fast to be remotely efficient at basic game management once you get to 3+ bases, whereas in SC2 the basics are easier to manage. However, players aren't consistently translating the fewer actions/attention needed to manage basic macro into advanced/enhanced usage of their buildings and units-- when they're on, they dominate, when they're off, they lose in frustrating fashions to watch.
The "pro" mechanical floor in BW is so high because the top tier of players are all very effective when it comes to basic game management functions based on speed. The "pro" mechanical floor in SC2 is so low because the top tier of players are not all very effective when it comes to properly executing advanced game functions based on speed. As the top players get better and better at being all over the map at once, the mechanical barrier for entry into that tier of play will rise drastically.
The haters on these boards that treat non-BW and casual BW players like lower people disgust me. Just because you played BW doesn't make you all knowing when it comes to SC2. Anyway, I think that the game definitely has some promise and there is still plenty of time to adjust units and their stats. The beta for HOTS hasn't been released yet and there is yet another expansion after it. It's not like SC1 was well-balanced 1 year into its existence and it turned into a great game. If you don't want to play SC2, you aren't forced to. You always have the option to stick with SC1 if you so wish.
On December 05 2011 15:26 Voltimand wrote: The haters on these boards that treat non-BW and casual BW players like lower people disgust me. Just because you played BW doesn't make you all knowing when it comes to SC2. Anyway, I think that the game definitely has some promise and there is still plenty of time to adjust units and their stats. The beta for HOTS hasn't been released yet and there is yet another expansion after it. It's not like SC1 was well-balanced 1 year into its existence and it turned into a great game. If you don't want to play SC2, you aren't forced to. You always have the option to stick with SC1 if you so wish.
Great way to present your self , no one's coming here and advertising their stuff saying "hey you know what sc bw players are actually better than sc2 ", Just the fact that people who has minimal exposure in bw , exaggerate the bad ai in bw which put's people who have played broodwar off . Especially if you go back in few pages , he specifically used dragoon ai as a means of judging broodwar capability of being able to play as good as sc2 ,because bw has a terrible ai makes it a bad game you know ?, especially using " HERP DERP " to express his statement -_- , luckily I have vods to prove that he is wrong or I wouldn't sleep for many days thanks to that .
Lau: 'Heart Of The Swarm is probably going to be the equivalent of brood war was to Starcraft, I believe everyone will move over to it after the game is balanced out. Personally I dislike the Terran vs Protoss match up as it requires stutter stepping from the Terran to stand a chance in most battles, hopefully the new units will change this. Also the new units will open up a new set of strategies and play styles which I look forward to.'
Wow, I've found another progamer to be an anti-fan of. That rounds up the total to two. "Guys its just kinda bullshit that i actually have to USE my armies superior mobility to help me win fights, UGH!"
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote: What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
Seriously? cuz u never had any job that u didn't enjoy so you quit right on spot right? Why would he quit being an progamer just because he doesn't think the game is 100% yet? i think i speak for 95% of the BW community that the game is shit compared to SC:BW balance.
Even if he doesnt enjoy the game its his job to play it.
Who are these "bad players with decent results" that Cloud is talking about? I consider "decent results" to be stuff like Code A, top 8 NASL, Top 8 IPL, Top 8 MLG, etc. I don't see any bad players in those. I hope he's not talking about some online shit.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
Says who?
That's really what pisses me off about all of this. All of the absolutes being thrown around. Who's to say that there won't develop a "standard" style of day that can adjust to either with good control and execution? Certainly not you. And Leenock certainly doesn't seem to have trouble with that sort of build on Bel'Shir. Why is that?
The entire point of denial of information is to leave your opponent in the dark about what you plan to do, and the game would be worse off if that were not a possibility. And you'd see a lot more 2-port banshee play alternating with ground-based all-ins if it were such a difficult thing to scout and handle as Z. There's a reason you don't see it much.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
Ok, just watched it. Spores weren't coming until 4 banshees were already on the way. To begin the game, Nestea overreacted hard to a "proxy" 2-rax push (the one proxy rax was almost as far away as the normal one), which set him back a little bit. Oops.
Onto the 2-port Banshee piece: even if Nestea couldn't know whether or not a command center was being thrown down at all, sC was certainly on one base for an extended period of time. Keep lings outside his door, look for a push out. There was no reason to be so cautious with his overlords, especially once he gained map control. The second piece is: you know a one-base push is coming. Build queens! Do you know what's very effective in conjunction with spine crawlers? Queens with transfuse. Queens do as much dps vs. 0 armor as, and are tankier than, roaches, and don't cost larva. What are Queens also good against? Air.
So how to deal with it: Notice sC is still on one-base. Continue to poke front with zerglings. No obvious sign of command center: prepare for one base push. Get full mineral saturation on 2 bases, begin to stockpile larva while building queens. Use queens to fling creep around the map, while keeping the energy moderately high on the extras. Build 3-4 spines. T is on one base. With full mineral saturation, you're still ahead.
Building a lair was straight-up greedy. It's a terrible thing to sink resources into when you strongly suspect a 1-base push is coming, since lair tech takes a long time to kick in and start paying off. While being greedy, he failed to have spores/queens already in place to protect against the possibility of air. He got punished for it, and died because he was frustratingly cautious with his overlords and played greedy without even attempting to gain any information. If he responds properly, he crushes sC's play and makes him look stupid. By responding poorly,he made it look like a "coin flip" build when it really wasn't. Like I said, there's a reason you don't see more 2-port banshee shenanigans, and that's because it relies on your opponent playing stupid.
If you spot a command center instead of a huge all-in at any point, drop your third/lair up ASAP. Use your stockpiled money/larva to take all gases and pump a huge round of drones. Proceed as (delayed) normal.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
He is just pointing out a glaring flaw in the "SC2 is crap compared to BW" argument.
That doesnt affect its overall bad gameplay i would play it if it was imbalanced but good and then he puts on a video of starcraft 7 years in 7 minutes and whats funny when you look at the patches of starcraft 1 is that they took a while to come out but there were so few the game was done with balance changes up at 1.08 in 2001 but with sc2 they have a new patch pretty much every 2 months or something and the players arent giving enough time to adapt so they just seem to get babied by blizzard for instance terran dont use ghosts they get lowered cost so they do use them then they get nerfed for being too strong same kinda thing with infestor but i beleive some zergs were starting to use that before the buff its so much cooler if a player figures out oh wait maybe this strategy from protoss isnt so good because i have this strategy instead of blizzard just doing it for them one thing i always wonder is what brood war would be like if it was patched like starcraft 2 was today
Lau: 'Heart Of The Swarm is probably going to be the equivalent of brood war was to Starcraft, I believe everyone will move over to it after the game is balanced out. Personally I dislike the Terran vs Protoss match up as it requires stutter stepping from the Terran to stand a chance in most battles, hopefully the new units will change this. Also the new units will open up a new set of strategies and play styles which I look forward to.'
Wow, I've found another progamer to be an anti-fan of. That rounds up the total to two. "Guys its just kinda bullshit that i actually have to USE my armies superior mobility to help me win fights, UGH!"
Heh, I felt the same way when I read that exact sentence.
Boohoo for terrans, I suppose. I guess Blizz isn't doing a good enough job of handing them their games on a silver platter?
/protoss.spite
On the topic of this article: I like the drive to go out there and poll the pros, but anybody else feel the opinions were a tad generic (no fault of the author, for what it's worth). I read through and only liked Incontrol's opinion, until he mentioned that he expects good things for the new toss units, and I couldn't take it seriously anymore.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
Ok, just watched it. Spores weren't coming until 4 banshees were already on the way. To begin the game, Nestea overreacted hard to a "proxy" 2-rax push (the one proxy rax was almost as far away as the normal one), which set him back a little bit. Oops.
Onto the 2-port Banshee piece: even if Nestea couldn't know whether or not a command center was being thrown down at all, sC was certainly on one base for an extended period of time. Keep lings outside his door, look for a push out. There was no reason to be so cautious with his overlords, especially once he gained map control. The second piece is: you know a one-base push is coming. Build queens! Do you know what's very effective in conjunction with spine crawlers? Queens with transfuse. Queens do as much dps vs. 0 armor as, and are tankier than, roaches, and don't cost larva. What are Queens also good against? Air.
So how to deal with it: Notice sC is still on one-base. Continue to poke front with zerglings. No obvious sign of command center: prepare for one base push. Get full mineral saturation on 2 bases, begin to stockpile larva while building queens. Use queens to fling creep around the map, while keeping the energy moderately high on the extras. Build 3-4 spines. T is on one base. With full mineral saturation, you're still ahead.
Building a lair was straight-up greedy. It's a terrible thing to sink resources into when you strongly suspect a 1-base push is coming, since lair tech takes a long time to kick in and start paying off. While being greedy, he failed to have spores/queens already in place to protect against the possibility of air. He got punished for it, and died because he was frustratingly cautious with his overlords and played greedy without even attempting to gain any information. If he responds properly, he crushes sC's play and makes him look stupid. By responding poorly,he made it look like a "coin flip" build when it really wasn't. Like I said, there's a reason you don't see more 2-port banshee shenanigans, and that's because it relies on your opponent playing stupid.
If you spot a command center instead of a huge all-in at any point, drop your third/lair up ASAP. Use your stockpiled money/larva to take all gases and pump a huge round of drones. Proceed as (delayed) normal.
God Bless you.
People say SC2 has been figured out faster than any competitive game in history, yet we're still seeing that the skill ceiling hasn't come anywhere close to being reached yet. There is no such thing as perfect scouting, it doesn't exist in BW or SC2. People are calling things "coin flips" just because of IdrA comments from a WHILE ago.
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I've never played bw. I'm master sc2 player, and recently played sc2 bw maps and watched some pro league. Sc bw is so freaking superior to sc2, it's not even funny. I repeat: i'm not a bw fanboy, in fact i'm more a sc2 fanboy, but even the "sc2 bw" maps have so much better micro mechanics than sc2.
I agree with cloud. After watching in bw maps, how better sc2 could have been. Sc2 is an amazing game, but the mechanics and balance design is totally flawed.
That's what I've been talking about, you guys. Why aren't we embracing the custom "sc2 bw" map?
There is just so much talk about how BW is superior and SC2 inferior. All it takes is one person to ignite this idea of the SC2 BW custom map, embrace, spread it like wildfire, and soon the tourneys will follow the custom map, instead of the flawed default SC2.
It is completely the most perfect compromise and I am really disappointed to see so few people here acknowledge that simple, basic fact. BW in an SC2 engine. Can we please just spread the word and make it happen?
I blame the bad custom map settings of bnet 2.0. In BW there were community maps that really florished and eventually made into tournaments. We do not see this in SC2.
I wish they implement a wc3 like custom system along side the current one.
I feel really betrayed by Blizzard's direct refusal to use good, time-tested unit designs from BW. Corsair is a great unit for fighting mutalisk. Why not use it? Goliath, vulture. Things like this make me sick.
On December 05 2011 14:07 Jimbo77 wrote: [quote] It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
Ok, just watched it. Spores weren't coming until 4 banshees were already on the way. To begin the game, Nestea overreacted hard to a "proxy" 2-rax push (the one proxy rax was almost as far away as the normal one), which set him back a little bit. Oops.
Onto the 2-port Banshee piece: even if Nestea couldn't know whether or not a command center was being thrown down at all, sC was certainly on one base for an extended period of time. Keep lings outside his door, look for a push out. There was no reason to be so cautious with his overlords, especially once he gained map control. The second piece is: you know a one-base push is coming. Build queens! Do you know what's very effective in conjunction with spine crawlers? Queens with transfuse. Queens do as much dps vs. 0 armor as, and are tankier than, roaches, and don't cost larva. What are Queens also good against? Air.
So how to deal with it: Notice sC is still on one-base. Continue to poke front with zerglings. No obvious sign of command center: prepare for one base push. Get full mineral saturation on 2 bases, begin to stockpile larva while building queens. Use queens to fling creep around the map, while keeping the energy moderately high on the extras. Build 3-4 spines. T is on one base. With full mineral saturation, you're still ahead.
Building a lair was straight-up greedy. It's a terrible thing to sink resources into when you strongly suspect a 1-base push is coming, since lair tech takes a long time to kick in and start paying off. While being greedy, he failed to have spores/queens already in place to protect against the possibility of air. He got punished for it, and died because he was frustratingly cautious with his overlords and played greedy without even attempting to gain any information. If he responds properly, he crushes sC's play and makes him look stupid. By responding poorly,he made it look like a "coin flip" build when it really wasn't. Like I said, there's a reason you don't see more 2-port banshee shenanigans, and that's because it relies on your opponent playing stupid.
If you spot a command center instead of a huge all-in at any point, drop your third/lair up ASAP. Use your stockpiled money/larva to take all gases and pump a huge round of drones. Proceed as (delayed) normal.
God Bless you.
Obviously I'm nowhere nowhere nowhere near Nestea's level. And obviously what I said is a super simplification of the process. But seriously, he prepared poorly. There's no reason why he shouldn't have been ready for the possibility of 2-port banshee, and he very clearly wasn't ready. Frustrating game to watch.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
You don't even make sense. I said that blizzard didn't balance the game the mapmakers did.
Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard.
Then you just restate what I said and call me stupid.
On December 06 2011 02:20 Bd.Snake wrote: the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
Now I ask you, can you read?
Also, theorycrafting about an unreleased alpha stage game is so dumb. Why cant people like you just bite your tongue and actually watch what happens instead of opening your mouth whenever you get a chance to make a snide remark.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
You don't even make sense. I said that blizzard didn't balance the game the mapmakers did.
On December 06 2011 02:20 Bd.Snake wrote: the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
Now I ask you, can you read?
Also, theorycrafting about an unreleased alpha stage game is so dumb. Why cant people like you just bite your tongue and actually watch what happens instead of opening your mouth whenever you get a chance to make a snide remark.
i never theorycrafted anything lol you need to cool your jets and actually read what i wrote and yes i forgot to mention the mapmakers then you make your coy remarks it really is kinda funny how your writing all these angry things that have nothing to do with what i actually said with all the replies you have made you have not proven anything said anything that has any meaing to what i said thats why i said you should think before you say anything more stupid im just gonna stop replying you obviously have nothing to discuss
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Completely disagree with your sentiments, just look at almost every other game, the skill caps are all way lower then starcraft yet they still have their top notch players that are hard to beat, the games are just not fun enough for "us" mid tier players to want to grind it out to become top tier or compete.
I would say the worst thing from switching from BW to SC2 is that my friends can beat me a percent of the time in SC2, where as in BW it was practically impossible. The skill cap was just too high.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Completely disagree with your sentiments, just look at almost every other game, the skill caps are all way lower then starcraft yet they still have their top notch players that are hard to beat, the games are just not fun enough for "us" mid tier players to want to grind it out to become top tier or compete.
I would say the worst thing from switching from BW to SC2 is that my friends can beat me a percent of the time in SC2, where as in BW it was practically impossible. The skill cap was just too high.
Drewbie beat MMA once in bo3 i think that should sum up the skill cap theory so far at least
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
You don't even make sense. I said that blizzard didn't balance the game the mapmakers did.
Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard.
Then you just restate what I said and call me stupid.
On December 06 2011 02:20 Bd.Snake wrote: the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
Now I ask you, can you read?
Also, theorycrafting about an unreleased alpha stage game is so dumb. Why cant people like you just bite your tongue and actually watch what happens instead of opening your mouth whenever you get a chance to make a snide remark.
i never theorycrafted anything lol you need to cool your jets and actually read what i wrote and yes i forgot to mention the mapmakers then you make your coy remarks it really is kinda funny how your writing all these angry things that have nothing to do with what i actually said with all the replies you have made you have not proven anything said anything that has any meaing to what i said thats why i said you should think before you say anything more stupid
Angry? Says who? Says you.Some random on the interwebz who doesn't know jack shit. If I got pissed everytime a idiot posted on a forum I would be one angry person.
Anyway, so far you have stated your opinion. However I have only made general statements that are mostly true.
1. Blizzard stopped patching sc1. Game reached the balance level that it currently has from the diligent work of mapmakers and community.
2. Arguing balance is pointless because despite what you believe, blizzard doesn't give two shits about what you think BD.snake.
Lastly before you try to flame me again,
Has every avenue of the game been explored? If it has, then the game may be imbalanced. If it hasn't, can you make remarks on balance since there are still options that are still unexplored?
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
You don't even make sense. I said that blizzard didn't balance the game the mapmakers did.
Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard.
Then you just restate what I said and call me stupid.
On December 06 2011 02:20 Bd.Snake wrote: the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
Now I ask you, can you read?
Also, theorycrafting about an unreleased alpha stage game is so dumb. Why cant people like you just bite your tongue and actually watch what happens instead of opening your mouth whenever you get a chance to make a snide remark.
i never theorycrafted anything lol you need to cool your jets and actually read what i wrote and yes i forgot to mention the mapmakers then you make your coy remarks it really is kinda funny how your writing all these angry things that have nothing to do with what i actually said with all the replies you have made you have not proven anything said anything that has any meaing to what i said thats why i said you should think before you say anything more stupid
Angry? Says who? Says you.Some random on the interwebz who doesn't know jack shit. If I got pissed everytime a idiot posted on a forum I would be one angry person.
Anyway, so far you have stated your opinion. However I have only made general statements that are mostly true.
1. Blizzard stopped patching sc1. Game reached the balance level that it currently has from the diligent work of mapmakers and community.
2. Arguing balance is pointless because despite what you believe, blizzard doesn't give two shits about what you think BD.snake.
Lastly before you try to flame me again,
Has every avenue of the game been explored? If it has, then the game may be imbalanced. If it hasn't, can you make remarks on balance since there are still options that are still unexplored?
your anger is blinding your posts from making any sense i never argued balance i said that they should take more time before they released patches your posts still dont make sense not once have you discussed what i have said you just keep stating your opinion as fact i dont know how many times i have to tell you to think before you post i stated my opinion you didnt once argue it you just keep saying general things you say things like has every avenue of the game been explored you talk about balance and all this but not once did i talk about the games balance or heart of the swarms balance i just said that they should take more time with patches and stop listening to the people who just whine about how bad there race is so the game is more solid besides not once have i flamed you yet you call me a idiot who doesnt know jackshit your posts are just a badly thought out mess
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
You don't even make sense. I said that blizzard didn't balance the game the mapmakers did.
Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard.
Then you just restate what I said and call me stupid.
On December 06 2011 02:20 Bd.Snake wrote: the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
Now I ask you, can you read?
Also, theorycrafting about an unreleased alpha stage game is so dumb. Why cant people like you just bite your tongue and actually watch what happens instead of opening your mouth whenever you get a chance to make a snide remark.
i never theorycrafted anything lol you need to cool your jets and actually read what i wrote and yes i forgot to mention the mapmakers then you make your coy remarks it really is kinda funny how your writing all these angry things that have nothing to do with what i actually said with all the replies you have made you have not proven anything said anything that has any meaing to what i said thats why i said you should think before you say anything more stupid
Angry? Says who? Says you.Some random on the interwebz who doesn't know jack shit. If I got pissed everytime a idiot posted on a forum I would be one angry person.
Anyway, so far you have stated your opinion. However I have only made general statements that are mostly true.
1. Blizzard stopped patching sc1. Game reached the balance level that it currently has from the diligent work of mapmakers and community.
2. Arguing balance and game design is pointless because despite what you believe, blizzard doesn't give two shits about what you think.
Lastly before you try to flame me again,
Has every avenue of the game been explored? If it has, then the game may be imbalanced. If it hasn't, can you make remarks on balance since there are still options that are still unexplored?
your anger is blinding your posts from making any sense i never argued balance i said that they should take more time before they released patches your posts still dont make sense not once have you discussed what i have said you just keep stating your opinion as fact i dont know how many times i have to tell you to think before you post i stated my opinion you didnt once argue it you just keep saying general things you say things like has every avenue of the game been explored you talk about balance and all this but not once did i talk about the games balance or heart of the swarms balance i just said that they should take more time with patches and stop listening to the people who just whine about how bad there race is so the game is more solid besides not once have i flamed you yet you call me a idiot who doesnt know jackshit your posts are just a badly thought out mess
I give up, you are right about patching things too quickly, that is obvious. Maybe that why I never responded to it? If you need confirmation, here it is. However, It looks like you are the one who is angry since you don't have time for punctuation. I cant expect someone to read through a mess like that.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
I dont want to get into how stupid you are but please dont post about things you know nothing about its better for the world :D the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
You don't even make sense. I said that blizzard didn't balance the game the mapmakers did.
Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard.
Then you just restate what I said and call me stupid.
On December 06 2011 02:20 Bd.Snake wrote: the point is the players and community balanced it after that patch not blizzard kthx
Now I ask you, can you read?
Also, theorycrafting about an unreleased alpha stage game is so dumb. Why cant people like you just bite your tongue and actually watch what happens instead of opening your mouth whenever you get a chance to make a snide remark.
i never theorycrafted anything lol you need to cool your jets and actually read what i wrote and yes i forgot to mention the mapmakers then you make your coy remarks it really is kinda funny how your writing all these angry things that have nothing to do with what i actually said with all the replies you have made you have not proven anything said anything that has any meaing to what i said thats why i said you should think before you say anything more stupid
Angry? Says who? Says you.Some random on the interwebz who doesn't know jack shit. If I got pissed everytime a idiot posted on a forum I would be one angry person.
Anyway, so far you have stated your opinion. However I have only made general statements that are mostly true.
1. Blizzard stopped patching sc1. Game reached the balance level that it currently has from the diligent work of mapmakers and community.
2. Arguing balance and game design is pointless because despite what you believe, blizzard doesn't give two shits about what you think.
Lastly before you try to flame me again,
Has every avenue of the game been explored? If it has, then the game may be imbalanced. If it hasn't, can you make remarks on balance since there are still options that are still unexplored?
your anger is blinding your posts from making any sense i never argued balance i said that they should take more time before they released patches your posts still dont make sense not once have you discussed what i have said you just keep stating your opinion as fact i dont know how many times i have to tell you to think before you post i stated my opinion you didnt once argue it you just keep saying general things you say things like has every avenue of the game been explored you talk about balance and all this but not once did i talk about the games balance or heart of the swarms balance i just said that they should take more time with patches and stop listening to the people who just whine about how bad there race is so the game is more solid besides not once have i flamed you yet you call me a idiot who doesnt know jackshit your posts are just a badly thought out mess
I give up troll
i dont get you at all so far you have claimed i flamed you when you called me a idiot who knew jackshit said my opinions are all wrong without arguing them claimed you are right then you just call me a troll please just think before you post i have not tried to force my opinion on you bye we will talk about my punctuation at a later date lol i never said i was right im just giving my opinion
On December 03 2011 12:00 Velr wrote: I don't see how anyone that saw the Hots multiplayer preview could have a positive oppinion about SC2.
What was shown at Blizzcon was just utter bullshit.
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.
Or more like we wonder why we should care what a low-mid tier foreign 'pro' thinks about an unreleased expansion? Honestly his opinion is no more valid or legit than any random GM player (or mid-high Korean Masters).
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Completely disagree with your sentiments, just look at almost every other game, the skill caps are all way lower then starcraft yet they still have their top notch players that are hard to beat, the games are just not fun enough for "us" mid tier players to want to grind it out to become top tier or compete.
I would say the worst thing from switching from BW to SC2 is that my friends can beat me a percent of the time in SC2, where as in BW it was practically impossible. The skill cap was just too high.
So you recognize that at the pro level some players are much better than others... this would suggest that there's not a skill cap problem.. but no, it's actually because the game isn't "fun enough".
"Yeah, I could be a top tier pro, but the game's just not fun enough so I'll stick with the mid tier, which still requires a lot of devotion to a game that isn't fun."
Also, I don't see how a player taking a game off of a better player occasionally is such a horrible thing... this is something that can happen in many successful sports/games and can lead to exciting upsets.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
how is that different from BW? How was zerg not allowed to be greedy in BW? remember how BW overlord was also a detector. That took away MORE options from the other races. You couldn't just go wraith rush in BW. Therefore even MORE greedy then SC2.
On December 06 2011 02:26 TORTOISE wrote: I feel really betrayed by Blizzard's direct refusal to use good, time-tested unit designs from BW. Corsair is a great unit for fighting mutalisk. Why not use it? Goliath, vulture. Things like this make me sick.
Once again, yet another reason to promote the SC2 BW custom map.
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Completely disagree with your sentiments, just look at almost every other game, the skill caps are all way lower then starcraft yet they still have their top notch players that are hard to beat, the games are just not fun enough for "us" mid tier players to want to grind it out to become top tier or compete.
I would say the worst thing from switching from BW to SC2 is that my friends can beat me a percent of the time in SC2, where as in BW it was practically impossible. The skill cap was just too high.
I hate to say it but it almost reminds me of Linux versus everyone else.
The UNIX/Linux diehards(the guys who know how to write applications to the point that they can code the entire OS from scratch) want to keep the OS exclusive to just their little community. They turn up their noses at the Redhat distros, all those variations that try to make Linux easier for the masses. The combination of the elitism, fragmentation, and so on prevented Linux from every reaching the mainstream. Meanwhile everyone's running either Windows or Macs. These elite people want everyone to be stuck in a world of a command line, and that's it.
That's why I almost feel that this is sour grapes. SC2 simplified much of the mechanics, so people can stop worrying so much about the basics and just jump into the action(extra rally points for workers, automine, etc).
Because your friends didn't have to worry about all these mundane things in SC2(whereas in BW, they simply couldn't keep up with you due to all the "housework" they were ill-equiped to take care), they could actually execute some scary timings.
Finally let's think about this. Your friends had a hope in hell of taking 1 game off of you(out of let's say 1 game out of 50 maybe)? You want them to never, ever have a chance in hell. Would they stay interested in this game, or move on to something else, because honestly, they're bored? Should probably think about that.
On December 03 2011 12:00 Velr wrote: I don't see how anyone that saw the Hots multiplayer preview could have a positive oppinion about SC2.
What was shown at Blizzcon was just utter bullshit.
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!!
blizzard has said it themselves. they want to create interesting and "fun" units first then worry about the balance. they dont seem to realize no matter how much you attempt to balance a shit idea its still a shit idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
might as well take out the REAL TIME out of the strategy you know ?
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.
honestly, everyone was talking shit about SC2 before it came out too. now that its out, i think its pretty safe to say that it was a huge success. yes there were a few things missing, but thats mainly out of game stuff like lan and bnet. the gameplay itself is great. do we still have doubts on blizzard?
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.
This post is 100% accurate...on a side note can't wait for T8 vs ACE
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
Pros seem to be worried about HOTS: they seem to be worried about change. This is understandable. They are pros now, but as HOTS changes a lot of things, this might very well result in a shift in their standing.
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 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
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)
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 18:18 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 18:18 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 18:18 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 18:18 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 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.
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.
You hit the nail on the head. The main problem with this game is how detached the design team is from reality, and they're extremely stubborn on top of that.
For instance, Dustin Browder absolutely refuses to even consider changing the unit clumping, and David Kim's assessment of the problems that players allegedly have are almost always baffling. I love how one of the "problems" being addressed in HotS is "the scenario where Protoss is facing 50-60 mutalisks." They're also "fixing" the fact that Terran infantry units have to "kite like crazy" against chargelots.
I'll go ahead and say it - most of the good things about WoL are the units, unit roles and design principles which carried over from Brood War. There are a few original and good things about WoL, but let's not forget how glaring the flaws are, with units like Corruptors, Colossus, Marauders, and bizarre (and uninteractive as a previous poster has pointed out) things like force fields.
HotS seems to be straying even further from the solid foundation that is carrying StarCraft II. I know they can balance it by playing with the numbers until it's statistically fine, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of their designs.
I think Blizzard needs to listen to pro players more as in Koreans, not BW has-beens that make big long ragey posts about SC2 when the truth is they're frustrated because they're not as good as they think they "should" be.
This Ex-BW pro attitude is poisonous to the game, a lot of people that play SC2 didn't play BW such as myself so this constant looming shadow of elitism from there is annoying to me.
I used to play WC3, a game that they seem to hate despite never playing it on a pro level (Not saying that I did) but there was so much skill and micro-potential in all of the units such as zeppelin useage to save units, what you see in SC2 today mostly from former WC3 players with warp prisms, animation cancelling and good positioning for spells. See Grubby's use of raiders to "line up" (Sorry Day9, WC3 came first) units and then shockwave them with his hero for maximum effect.
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.
... HotS seems to be straying even further from the solid foundation that is carrying StarCraft II. I know they can balance it by playing with the numbers until it's statistically fine, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of their designs.
I believe this is the best way to phrase it I have heard yet. Sc2 is most certainly riddled with some pretty glaring design errors, all we can hope is that Blizzard stops being both so ignorant and so stubborn to what is really necessary. They have been pretty bad at this recently, but after re-watching the blizzcon multiplayer panel I am cautiously optimistic that maybe their philosophy has been changed by the reality of the situation and from professional feedback.
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.
You hit the nail on the head. The main problem with this game is how detached the design team is from reality, and they're extremely stubborn on top of that.
For instance, Dustin Browder absolutely refuses to even consider changing the unit clumping, and David Kim's assessment of the problems that players allegedly have are almost always baffling. I love how one of the "problems" being addressed in HotS is "the scenario where Protoss is facing 50-60 mutalisks." They're also "fixing" the fact that Terran infantry units have to "kite like crazy" against chargelots.
I'll go ahead and say it - most of the good things about WoL are the units, unit roles and design principles which carried over from Brood War. There are a few original and good things about WoL, but let's not forget how glaring the flaws are, with units like Corruptors, Colossus, Marauders, and bizarre (and uninteractive as a previous poster has pointed out) things like force fields.
HotS seems to be straying even further from the solid foundation that is carrying StarCraft II. I know they can balance it by playing with the numbers until it's statistically fine, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of their designs.
@both posts: exactly 100% my opinion, it's almost creepy :D
even just fixing the cluming aspect would already make it a much much better game and AoE attacks would become more balanceable
'Hmm, I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit"
I think HOTS will be bad for the e-sports scene ;/ Why are they adding so many units? I like SC2 the way it is now. They should instead add those gimmicky untis in the single player "campaign" where i think they belong.
Removing cool untis(Carrier/mothership) and adding "strange" units ? I dont like the way blizzard is thinking.
On December 07 2011 02:38 PyroN wrote: I have to Agree with Bischu on HOTS
'Hmm, I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit"
I think HOTS will be bad for the e-sports scene ;/ Why are they adding so many units? I like SC2 the way it is now. They should instead add those gimmicky untis in the single player "campaign" where i think they belong.
Removing cool untis(Carrier/mothership) and adding "strange" units ? I dont like the way blizzard is thinking.
I think the initial quote is a bit misleading. Yes, the oracle is a harassment-only unit, which a lot of protoss players dont enjoy as they feel they need more actual attacking units, and I completely sympathize with this. However that quote implies that the oracle is meant for any and all harassment options for toss. This is simply not true, we have seen harassment options fluorish for toss with the inclusion of the warp prism and lots of phoenix (particularly against zerg). The oracle would simply be another arsenal the toss would have to harass with.
Also I understand and completely agree that Blizz seems to think units in sc2 should be more specialized and fit certain roles. This is not really the way most people want the game to be, and I agree to some extent. However I'm curious, how far can the game deisgners go with 'role units' before it is too much? For example, think back to the medic in BW. Was it not only useful to negate stim's damage and to keep the units alive longer? Don't medics become immediately useless when all mariens and firebats are dead? They can not really accomplish much else. In the past I have heard examples of players doing things such as using the medic to blind key units ie the observer, but would that not have come around from much experience and time to figure out what exactly each unit is capable of? Another example is the valkyrie. Was it not only used for mutas?
I would also like to state that I am not attempting to set up an argument with strong points about how you all are wrong or whatever. I am merely presenting other sides to the story, so that we get an even discussion here. Please, explain to me why my reasons are wrong, because I had absolutely no intention of being absolutely right
On December 07 2011 02:38 PyroN wrote: I have to Agree with Bischu on HOTS
'Hmm, I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit"
I think HOTS will be bad for the e-sports scene ;/ Why are they adding so many units? I like SC2 the way it is now. They should instead add those gimmicky untis in the single player "campaign" where i think they belong.
Removing cool untis(Carrier/mothership) and adding "strange" units ? I dont like the way blizzard is thinking.
I think the initial quote is a bit misleading. Yes, the oracle is a harassment-only unit, which a lot of protoss players dont enjoy as they feel they need more actual attacking units, and I completely sympathize with this. However that quote implies that the oracle is meant for any and all harassment options for toss. This is simply not true, we have seen harassment options fluorish for toss with the inclusion of the warp prism and lots of phoenix (particularly against zerg). The oracle would simply be another arsenal the toss would have to harass with.
Also I understand and completely agree that Blizz seems to think units in sc2 should be more specialized and fit certain roles. This is not really the way most people want the game to be, and I agree to some extent. However I'm curious, how far can the game deisgners go with 'role units' before it is too much? For example, think back to the medic in BW. Was it not only useful to negate stim's damage and to keep the units alive longer? Don't medics become immediately useless when all mariens and firebats are dead? They can not really accomplish much else. In the past I have heard examples of players doing things such as using the medic to blind key units ie the observer, but would that not have come around from much experience and time to figure out what exactly each unit is capable of? Another example is the valkyrie. Was it not only used for mutas?
I would also like to state that I am not attempting to set up an argument with strong points about how you all are wrong or whatever. I am merely presenting other sides to the story, so that we get an even discussion here. Please, explain to me why my reasons are wrong, because I had absolutely no intention of being absolutely right
The thing about medics is that they had 2 spells that you could always use.
Optical Flare and Restoration. Optical Flare blinded units and Restoration took away any negative effects on your units from other spells like plague and lockdown. They basically always had a use, on another note if you watch pro BW games, Terran will be stimming his marines continuously because of how abundant energy was and because stim increased firerate by 100%, not 50% like in sc2. Basically Medics always had a use.
For all the complaints about clumping why don't people use some of their spare time in game (what with all the super easy macro and whatnot...) to execute some finer control over their units and maintain a reasonable spread? Most purport to crave a mechanically-superior experience after all, so if you can babysit units in BW that are just being dumb, how about babysitting units in SC2 that are trying to be too clever and failing just as hard?
Personally I care little for what anyone has to say at the moment because we don't even have a beta, and we all know WoL changed drastically through out its alpha/beta stages. Not to say any of the concerns are unwarranted because from our perspective they are all rational.
Furthermore the biggest issue I am having with Blizz is this constant casual catering, they only seem to care about accessibility and sadly, even if that is their true goal, they're doing an upsettingly bad job. These 'uber' and 'cool' units are destroying the game and wasting everyones time. Do you think anyone sat around waiting for BW thinking about how cool their units were going to be? No that was something that came with getting good, balanced, fun gameplay, it was just inherit that if that game was good and enjoyable it was 'cool'. Instead they are only focusing on the 'cool' ergo absurd and dull in terms of game balance and lore. They need to remember the reason anyone even gives a shit about this game in the first place. And I know they have almost impossibly high standards to meet but come on, this is a company that makes games that absolutely require a very close contact with their community members and yet they still think they know best. They aren't sitting around cooking up meta-game ideas like the pro's. In reality they only seem to know whats best for their wallets. They sure as hell don't give a damn about eSports, which is a complete mystery if you ask me. It's practically a blessing for your game to be seen in that regard, also free advertising! They are doing everything they can to force B.net down our throats while still cutting up the continents. No LAN support, poor and stubborn attempts at fixes and rebalancing. Absolutely silly map design and poorly thought out race mechanics as well as their interaction and play style between maps.
They will be the death of their own game...from regional servers, abysmal unit and game design and balance attempts, little regard for their eSports and community members and finally just plain old not caring about their true fan base and roots. HoTS can do a lot for us, but it doesn't require or at least shouldn't require an expansion to fix a lot of the issues they have at the moment.
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.
I'd answer your argument in depth but I don't feel like arguing with someone who is just blindly stating a flawed opinion so I'll answer it like this.
Starcraft is a game and a universe designed by blizzard. Anyone who played or watched BW has an expectation starcraft 2 to still be starcraft. Dustin Browder, the head developer said himself 'we are not trying to make BW over'. That's not the exact quote but it sums it up. That is the problem. When the lead developer is NOT trying to make the sequel to starcraft in the same light as starcraft, it is not starcraft anymore. That is the problem here. They have a lead fucking designer that isn't trying to make starcraft, but is trying to make command and conquer in the starcraft universe. And no im not citing the source because I'm lazy and it's a known fact that he said that.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. And when I say same game I mean there is a certain design/gameplay style from BW that made it able to be as competitive as it was and made starcraft into the legend that it was. That is not present in sc2. I understand all the fanboys who didn't experience or grow up on broodwar want to religiously defend their game, but the fact is that it's flawed because the design philosophy of the developers is to not make starcraft.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
I don't think he means that he wants BW remade. I think he means that the design team is trying too hard to not be like BW, and we've ended up in C&C territory in terms of design, rather than a true sequel to BW which builds upon it. Instead, there have been several backwards steps.
I hear some complaining about AOE. AOE is probably THE thing that separated BW from the multitude of RTS games out there at that time that weren't great. If not for AOE, then macro and ignoring the main screen is all the game is about which is just silly. I won't disagree that the clumping effect in SC2 is a very different feel from BW and is unfortunate. But as the game is designed, you just need to micro when AOE is on the field. It actually is not that hard to know when to pay attention to the damn fight. If you can't handle micro during a fight, don't be surprised if your not performing as well as you did in post 1999 BW where macro was more heavily favored.
Having said that, I am very worried about what was revealed at Blizzcon. Sure it will all change a lot, but there are a few things that are already worrying with the direction being taken. But Blizzard takes this game seriously, and with so many dedicated serious players it will turn out well in the end.
A lot of people saying Cloud is a little butt hurt or bitter but I couldn't agree with him more! I think that last patch only serves as an even better reminder that Blizz is going in the wrong direction with their balance and these new units are certainly going to make that worse. iNcontrol pretty much said the same thing as Cloud, he just said it nicely, lol.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
I don't think he means that he wants BW remade. I think he means that the design team is trying too hard to not be like BW, and we've ended up in C&C territory in terms of design, rather than a true sequel to BW which builds upon it. Instead, there have been several backwards steps.
Thank you for reading my post in its entirety and getting exactly what I was saying out of it. I also don't get how anyone could read my post and NOT get that out of it but people never cease to amuse.
This is not about having BW 'remade'. This is not about playing the same game as BW. It is about keeping true to the starcraft style and universe though. Dustin browder has said that is NOT what they are doing and that is what the fundamental flaw with sc2 is.
On December 07 2011 04:23 Bagi wrote:
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
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.
I'd answer your argument in depth but I don't feel like arguing with someone who is just blindly stating a flawed opinion so I'll answer it like this.
Starcraft is a game and a universe designed by blizzard. Anyone who played or watched BW has an expectation starcraft 2 to still be starcraft. Dustin Browder, the head developer said himself 'we are not trying to make BW over'. That's not the exact quote but it sums it up. That is the problem. When the lead developer is NOT trying to make the sequel to starcraft in the same light as starcraft, it is not starcraft anymore. That is the problem here. They have a lead fucking designer that isn't trying to make starcraft, but is trying to make command and conquer in the starcraft universe. And no im not citing the source because I'm lazy and it's a known fact that he said that.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. And when I say same game I mean there is a certain design/gameplay style from BW that made it able to be as competitive as it was and made starcraft into the legend that it was. That is not present in sc2. I understand all the fanboys who didn't experience or grow up on broodwar want to religiously defend their game, but the fact is that it's flawed because the design philosophy of the developers is to not make starcraft.
blizzard made bw, and now they are making sc2, so its BY DEFINITION a starcraft game. you can't expect the same dev team to make every starcraft game. thats not possible. and you cant expect the dev team of sc2, or any starcraft game, to mimic a former dev team and their design philosophy, because that would belittle their artistic standards. if i would be a game designer, i wouldn't want to have to remake the same game over and over, after all, game design is a creative process. if a team succeeds or not, is another thing, but don't expect them to copy something, that would be boring for them and for us.
your expectation of sc2 still being starcraft is senseless because you can't base your expectation of a franchise (starcraft) on one game this franchise produced (bw). imagine the makers of wc3 would have sticked to wc1 or even wc2. that would've been horrible. and you don't see anyone saying wc3 is not a warcraft game. the only reason this bw sc2 debate flames up all the time is because bw was a really good game. but people need to understand that this doesn't mean blizzard doesn't have the right to make the game THEY want to make. it's there game. not yours. deal with it, or better, launch a company that makes an RTS with 12 max groups, bad AI and without smart casting. shouldn't be that difficult.
On December 07 2011 05:05 gayfius173 wrote: Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
Doesn't change a thing, you complain when SC2 doesn't follow your arbitrary definition of "Starcraft design". The game is still very, very much Starcraft, and your whines about smartcasting and MBS make me believe your definition of "Starcraft" is something every sane developer would avoid (for good reasons). Just cut the bullshit and go back to playing BW, its obvious you will never be satisfied with this game.
well it's kinda clear that blizz doesn't understand every aspect of the game (like removing thor energy and then readding it, or bunker changes); i hope they'll remove some HotS new unit in the beta
but people need to understand that this doesn't mean blizzard doesn't have the right to make the game THEY want to make. it's there game. not yours. deal with it, or better, launch a company that makes an RTS with 12 max groups, bad AI and without smart casting. shouldn't be that difficult.
I have to disagree with this statement right here. What makes a great game to a person, for me anyways, is when you can personalize the game and make it something of your own. As a community, when it accepts a game, it is essentially the communities gift at this point. If the developers label something as a sequel, it should stay true to being a sequel, and not simply a different game with the same name. The community is what made the game a success, so in some sense the community has a full right to have some decision in the making of a game.
It's more of a good thing that people are criticizing the games current state, because it keeps them honest as developers, and shows our interest as players to keep a game going with our supportive criticisms. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with all the criticisms thrown at blizzard, but I feel the game design in SC2 needs some serious work.
Also, no one can just start an RTS like the way you stated, so that was kind of a pointless statement.
On December 07 2011 05:05 gayfius173 wrote: Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
Doesn't change a thing, you complain when SC2 doesn't follow your arbitrary definition of "Starcraft design". The game is still very, very much Starcraft, and your whines about smartcasting and MBS make me believe your definition of "Starcraft" is something every sane developer would avoid (for good reasons). Just cut the bullshit and go back to playing BW, its obvious you will never be satisfied with this game.
Your posts are very very relevant and useful to the discussion. /end sarcasm.
Go play some broodwar. Go play some command and conquer. Then play starcraft 2. If you've any minor amount of brain activity going on you'll quickly find out that sc2 plays more like command and conquer than it does BW. That is a problem.
Why you guys gotta be so angry. What is it about internet arguments that make people sling insults and rage out. No one is ever going to agree with you about anything if you use wild hyperbole and call them idiots. This thread is embarrassing to read.
On topic, I'm not perfectly happy with sc2 but its the best game out right now. And coming from the company that made world of warcraft we should be really happy with what we have, compared to what we could have gotten. HOTS looks pretty disappointing but its no reason to rage out like children throwing a tantrum.
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.
I'd answer your argument in depth but I don't feel like arguing with someone who is just blindly stating a flawed opinion so I'll answer it like this.
Starcraft is a game and a universe designed by blizzard. Anyone who played or watched BW has an expectation starcraft 2 to still be starcraft. Dustin Browder, the head developer said himself 'we are not trying to make BW over'. That's not the exact quote but it sums it up. That is the problem. When the lead developer is NOT trying to make the sequel to starcraft in the same light as starcraft, it is not starcraft anymore. That is the problem here. They have a lead fucking designer that isn't trying to make starcraft, but is trying to make command and conquer in the starcraft universe. And no im not citing the source because I'm lazy and it's a known fact that he said that.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. And when I say same game I mean there is a certain design/gameplay style from BW that made it able to be as competitive as it was and made starcraft into the legend that it was. That is not present in sc2. I understand all the fanboys who didn't experience or grow up on broodwar want to religiously defend their game, but the fact is that it's flawed because the design philosophy of the developers is to not make starcraft.
Fair enough.
However I just wanted to state I'm not simply a 'newbie sc2 fanboy'. I spent a large part of my earlier years playing BW, and while I never got into it near the amount that I have gotten into sc2, I have owned and played the game since I was 7. Please don't simply make generalizations about me being blinded towards the facts, because in fact I grew up with BW just like you and am only here to get an honest, well-rounded understanding of the perceived issues between Sc2 and BW. If you noticed, I worded my posts in such a way to show that I am not being ignorant to either side, and that I just want to hear all sides of the argument, instead of simply stating what is right and what is wrong in this situation.
I'm willing to have a mature discussion about this situation, but it is hard when you cast aside the things I say as me being 'an ignorant fanboy completely blind to the real facts'.
but people need to understand that this doesn't mean blizzard doesn't have the right to make the game THEY want to make. it's there game. not yours. deal with it, or better, launch a company that makes an RTS with 12 max groups, bad AI and without smart casting. shouldn't be that difficult.
I have to disagree with this statement right here. What makes a great game to a person, for me anyways, is when you can personalize the game and make it something of your own. As a community, when it accepts a game, it is essentially the communities gift at this point. If the developers label something as a sequel, it should stay true to being a sequel, and not simply a different game with the same name. The community is what made the game a success, so in some sense the community has a full right to have some decision in the making of a game.
It's more of a good thing that people are criticizing the games current state, because it keeps them honest as developers, and shows our interest as players to keep a game going with our supportive criticisms. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with all the criticisms thrown at blizzard, but I feel the game design in SC2 needs some serious work.
Also, no one can just start an RTS like the way you stated, so that was kind of a pointless statement.
that statement was just to lighten up the mood because we all now how heated this debate can be.
what you say implies several things i can't agree with. first, the way you say it makes it sound like blizzard didn't intend to make a good sequel to bw. they didn't try to make a complete new game and lable it starcraft. why would they? its in there own long term interest to make the best sc2 game possible, so why wouldn't they try to do so? if they failed on certain things (which is possible, they are human after all), why wouldn't they try to fix it? they are blessed with such a caring community, why wouldn't they capitalize on that?
for me it just doesn't make sense to assume that blizzard is dump and stubborn, the way i see it they are in a steady discours with the community and the pro players, and they have time and time talked about why they don't go back to bw unit pathing, why they don't want to recycle bw units, etc. but we are still talking about clumping units? why? why are we still talking about lurkers all the time? why isn't there someone coming up with other, maybe new (omg) things, why isn't there someone saying "ok, you don't want to go back to an outdated engine, how about this this this, how about making this engine work by blablabla" all we hear is whining about how bw was such a superior game, but noone seems to care about what it means to have to make sc2, and how hard it can be.
criticisms is a good thing, but if you want to have a fruitful debate, you have to listen too and accept arguments, and to me it seems that still many peolpe don't like to listen to blizzard, which is absurd because they should know a thing or two about making games.
On December 07 2011 05:05 gayfius173 wrote: Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
Doesn't change a thing, you complain when SC2 doesn't follow your arbitrary definition of "Starcraft design". The game is still very, very much Starcraft, and your whines about smartcasting and MBS make me believe your definition of "Starcraft" is something every sane developer would avoid (for good reasons). Just cut the bullshit and go back to playing BW, its obvious you will never be satisfied with this game.
Your posts are very very relevant and useful to the discussion. /end sarcasm.
Go play some broodwar. Go play some command and conquer. Then play starcraft 2. If you've any minor amount of brain activity going on you'll quickly find out that sc2 plays more like command and conquer than it does BW. That is a problem.
Let me guess: You've never played the newer command and conquer games, but you say SC2 reminds you of them because Dustin Browder worked on some old C&C games? How about you explain to me how C&C plays and how that reflects to SC2? That might mean you would have an argument here instead of just rabble. And no, telling people to just "have some brain activity and go play the games" isn't going to cut it.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
It's pretty funny that I'm reading this right now. I reinstalled BW a week ago and started playing a bit and I almost fully agree with Cloud. The overwhelming "allinish" aspect of SC2 really takes a lot of the fun away compared to BW and even if you get to a fairly even late game situation you have to deal with those crazy AoE and stacked as fuck armies that decide the game in 5 seconds.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying SC2 is a terrible game. I've seen and played a lot of excellet games but I've also seen and played a TON of utterly depressing games. That never happened to me in BW (even when Ps were gaying it up with carriers on cliff-heavy maps :p), both as a spectator and a player. No matter how outdated the mechanics, AI and pathing may be, BW is still by far the superior RTS and it's unlikely that HotS will change anything to that.
that statement was just to lighten up the mood because we all now how heated this debate can be.
what you say implies several things i can't agree with. first, the way you say it makes it sound like blizzard didn't intend to make a good sequel to bw. they didn't try to make a complete new game and lable it starcraft. why would they? its in there own long term interest to make the best sc2 game possible, so why wouldn't they try to do so? if they failed on certain things (which is possible, they are human after all), why wouldn't they try to fix it? they are blessed with such a caring community, why wouldn't they capitalize on that?
for me it just doesn't make sense to assume that blizzard is dump and stubborn, the way i see it they are in a steady discours with the community and the pro players, and they have time and time talked about why they don't go back to bw unit pathing, why they don't want to recycle bw units, etc. but we are still talking about clumping units? why? why are we still talking about lurkers all the time? why isn't there someone coming up with other, maybe new (omg) things, why isn't there someone saying "ok, you don't want to go back to an outdated engine, how about this this this, how about making this engine work by blablabla" all we hear is whining about how bw was such a superior game, but noone seems to care about what it means to have to make sc2, and how hard it can be.
criticisms is a good thing, but if you want to have a fruitful debate, you have to listen too and accept arguments, and to me it seems that still many peolpe don't like to listen to blizzard, which is absurd because they should know a thing or two about making games.
Hmm... If I made it sound like Blizzard isn't trying, then I obviously stated my argument wrong. Moreover, I was trying to point out that a game made by developers becomes as much of a game to the people its made for as it is for the developers who made them. e.g. Developers who made Hellgate: London are probably the prime example of a company intending to screw someone over, and I would never relate Blizzard to those guys.
I would like to point out that I also don't intend on calling Blizzard out for being bad developers or anything. I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass it is for them to design and create Starcraft 2, but I think the poster you argued against is more frustrated with how Blizzard had a great template to start a game by (Brood War), and chose to do away with a lot of the great aspects of the game simply for the sake of being different. And that was the point of my argument.
As players, we can only see how much the game differs by the way conventional strategies in normal RTS just don't apply to the game. As an example, force fields take the idea of terrain advantages, and end up softening out too many tactics involving flanking maneuvers and stabbing principals since it literally evolves the terrain _too easily_. The mechanic just involves the click of a button, and it "revolutionizes" strategy that was made in the years of RTS games. Another example a lot of people complain about would be the Warp Gate, and how it takes away the importance of solidifying a reinforcement path to the point of interest.
The reason you see people complain about lurkers would probably be because of the siege importance of having them. With Lurkers it was a lot easier to manage base defenses, but it was also a lot harder to find weak spots for the opposing player. When you take away the lurker, and add an aggressively used attack unit like the baneling to replace it, all you get is strange rewards for being over-aggressive, especially since there's absolutely no solid way for Zerg to defend base pokes like hellions roasting entire lines of workers, which take literally all game to build. I mean, obviously players have adapted to hellion pokes, but having a defensive siege unit like the lurker would help the game become more heavily based on tactics on rooting out said siege units and then attacking, rather than just attacking attacking attacking. Hellions and baneling drops are just some of the things brood war players probably hate because of how much it rewards overly risky play, without being too risky.
SC2, like BW, is a strategy game that revolves heavily around resources, but they just made it too easy to destroy resource lines with these units. Even Dark Templars have become stronger in a cheesy way because overlords have lost the ability to detect for free. Which I would actually rather see Zerg get back in HotS.
Personally, I don't mind the new unit pathing in Starcraft 2. A lot of the things in Starcraft 2 are still great, and it's why I still play and enjoy the game, but there are some things I really want Blizzard to work on to improve, rather than just say they're not going to do it, and I think that goes for a lot of the people who are complaining.
As for listening to and accepting criticisms, I think that can go for both sides, so it's not really a point I'm going to go on.
On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote: For all the complaints about clumping why don't people use some of their spare time in game (what with all the super easy macro and whatnot...) to execute some finer control over their units and maintain a reasonable spread? Most purport to crave a mechanically-superior experience after all, so if you can babysit units in BW that are just being dumb, how about babysitting units in SC2 that are trying to be too clever and failing just as hard?
Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..?
On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote: For all the complaints about clumping why don't people use some of their spare time in game (what with all the super easy macro and whatnot...) to execute some finer control over their units and maintain a reasonable spread? Most purport to crave a mechanically-superior experience after all, so if you can babysit units in BW that are just being dumb, how about babysitting units in SC2 that are trying to be too clever and failing just as hard?
Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..?
Right.
I've always thought this when people complained about unit clumping.
Doesn't unit clumping make the game harder and less newb friendly? AOE obliterates marines/roaches/etc. so at the lowest level AOE is ridiculously strong. If we're talking about as an esport though, i.e. the professional level then players manually spread units out.
This adds to the skill of the game, separates the high level amateurs from the pros.
We've already seen examples of it - marine splits against banelings/fungals, unit splits against tanks, Protoss death-ball spreads against EMP. This has infinite capacity to grow and may result in huge shifts in the metagame.
The unit clumping makes the game less forgiving - it is not a flaw in the game or a problem it is actually a benefit to the competitiveness of the game via raising the skill ceiling.
that statement was just to lighten up the mood because we all now how heated this debate can be.
what you say implies several things i can't agree with. first, the way you say it makes it sound like blizzard didn't intend to make a good sequel to bw. they didn't try to make a complete new game and lable it starcraft. why would they? its in there own long term interest to make the best sc2 game possible, so why wouldn't they try to do so? if they failed on certain things (which is possible, they are human after all), why wouldn't they try to fix it? they are blessed with such a caring community, why wouldn't they capitalize on that?
for me it just doesn't make sense to assume that blizzard is dump and stubborn, the way i see it they are in a steady discours with the community and the pro players, and they have time and time talked about why they don't go back to bw unit pathing, why they don't want to recycle bw units, etc. but we are still talking about clumping units? why? why are we still talking about lurkers all the time? why isn't there someone coming up with other, maybe new (omg) things, why isn't there someone saying "ok, you don't want to go back to an outdated engine, how about this this this, how about making this engine work by blablabla" all we hear is whining about how bw was such a superior game, but noone seems to care about what it means to have to make sc2, and how hard it can be.
criticisms is a good thing, but if you want to have a fruitful debate, you have to listen too and accept arguments, and to me it seems that still many peolpe don't like to listen to blizzard, which is absurd because they should know a thing or two about making games.
Hmm... If I made it sound like Blizzard isn't trying, then I obviously stated my argument wrong. Moreover, I was trying to point out that a game made by developers becomes as much of a game to the people its made for as it is for the developers who made them. e.g. Developers who made Hellgate: London are probably the prime example of a company intending to screw someone over, and I would never relate Blizzard to those guys.
I would like to point out that I also don't intend on calling Blizzard out for being bad developers or anything. I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass it is for them to design and create Starcraft 2, but I think the poster you argued against is more frustrated with how Blizzard had a great template to start a game by (Brood War), and chose to do away with a lot of the great aspects of the game simply for the sake of being different. And that was the point of my argument.
As players, we can only see how much the game differs by the way conventional strategies in normal RTS just don't apply to the game. As an example, force fields take the idea of terrain advantages, and end up softening out too many tactics involving flanking maneuvers and stabbing principals since it literally evolves the terrain _too easily_. The mechanic just involves the click of a button, and it "revolutionizes" strategy that was made in the years of RTS games. Another example a lot of people complain about would be the Warp Gate, and how it takes away the importance of solidifying a reinforcement path to the point of interest.
The reason you see people complain about lurkers would probably be because of the siege importance of having them. With Lurkers it was a lot easier to manage base defenses, but it was also a lot harder to find weak spots for the opposing player. When you take away the lurker, and add an aggressively used attack unit like the baneling to replace it, all you get is strange rewards for being over-aggressive, especially since there's absolutely no solid way for Zerg to defend base pokes like hellions roasting entire lines of workers, which take literally all game to build. I mean, obviously players have adapted to hellion pokes, but having a defensive siege unit like the lurker would help the game become more heavily based on tactics on rooting out said siege units and then attacking, rather than just attacking attacking attacking. Hellions and baneling drops are just some of the things brood war players probably hate because of how much it rewards overly risky play, without being too risky.
SC2, like BW, is a strategy game that revolves heavily around resources, but they just made it too easy to destroy resource lines with these units. Even Dark Templars have become stronger in a cheesy way because overlords have lost the ability to detect for free. Which I would actually rather see Zerg get back in HotS.
Personally, I don't mind the new unit pathing in Starcraft 2. A lot of the things in Starcraft 2 are still great, and it's why I still play and enjoy the game, but there are some things I really want Blizzard to work on to improve, rather than just say they're not going to do it, and I think that goes for a lot of the people who are complaining.
As for listening to and accepting criticisms, I think that can go for both sides, so it's not really a point I'm going to go on.
EDIT: BTW, I'm not a BW player just to clarify.
ok, some questions. do you think the makers of sc2 didn't think about the consequences of implementing force fields and warp gates at all, about how that would change the importance of terrain and the aspect of reinforcement, which are so basic to RTS that one can asume they did know about them? i don't believe they would make such a big mistake when it seems so obvious to every person without any expertise in game design at all (most people here). its obvious that by implementing force fields for example, they thought its worth sacrificing the importance of terrain for what they thought force fields would add to the game. all i'm saying the whole time is, people always talk about what sc2 lacks compared to bw because of force fields and never about what it gains from force fields. my english is not that good but i hope you get what i'm trying to say?
and by the way, i think the biggest problem is, ironically, that blizzard has a monopoly on good RTS games. if there would be another company who can challenge them in terms of competitive RTS games, i think everyone would benefit. but making good RTS is hard i guess.
On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote: For all the complaints about clumping why don't people use some of their spare time in game (what with all the super easy macro and whatnot...) to execute some finer control over their units and maintain a reasonable spread? Most purport to crave a mechanically-superior experience after all, so if you can babysit units in BW that are just being dumb, how about babysitting units in SC2 that are trying to be too clever and failing just as hard?
Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..?
Right.
I've always thought this when people complained about unit clumping.
Doesn't unit clumping make the game harder and less newb friendly? AOE obliterates marines/roaches/etc. so at the lowest level AOE is ridiculously strong. If we're talking about as an esport though, i.e. the professional level then players manually spread units out.
This adds to the skill of the game, separates the high level amateurs from the pros.
We've already seen examples of it - marine splits against banelings/fungals, unit splits against tanks, Protoss death-ball spreads against EMP. This has infinite capacity to grow and may result in huge shifts in the metagame.
The unit clumping makes the game less forgiving - it is not a flaw in the game or a problem it is actually a benefit to the competitiveness of the game via raising the skill ceiling.
Yeah, I agree almost entirely with this.
In addition I see tons of games where if players had faster game speed/better mechanics to handle everything they had the potential to do at once they would absolutely dismantle their opponents. I sincerely believe that even the top players are barely scraping the surface of "good" right now.
I think the main "complaint" is that easier macro makes the skill floor higher (has nothing to do with skill ceiling, just the floor), and the unforgiving nature of the game makes it so that playing poorly in unit engagements is punished hard... which leads to them dropping games to players they feel are worse than them because they make more mistakes than their opponent in that particular game, and are unable to rely on speed-base techniques to dig themselves out of a hole.
Meh. Seems the main argument boils down to "the better player should win every time even if he makes a lot more mistakes because he's better/faster." BW also has a lot of examples of pretty 1-sided micro, where essentially one player's skill determines the outcome of the fight... yet this is bad in SC2 (whereas it's all "perfect" mechanics in BW), I see a lot of contradictory posts in that sense.
For the record, I LOVE the feel of BW. It definitely has the crisp feel that people refer to in a way that SC2 somewhat lacks. At the same time, that has nothing to do with the comparison of the actual difficulty and skill thresholds between the two. Tribes 2 had more depth and probably an equally high skill ceiling in comparison to Starsiege: Tribes, regardless of how infinitely I prefer the feel of of the original.
And for the record (somewhat on-topic since the NASL has apparently picked it up), Tribes: Ascend is an abomination of a Tribes game that isn't fit to have the name in its title.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote: For all the complaints about clumping why don't people use some of their spare time in game (what with all the super easy macro and whatnot...) to execute some finer control over their units and maintain a reasonable spread? Most purport to crave a mechanically-superior experience after all, so if you can babysit units in BW that are just being dumb, how about babysitting units in SC2 that are trying to be too clever and failing just as hard?
Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..?
Right.
I've always thought this when people complained about unit clumping.
Doesn't unit clumping make the game harder and less newb friendly? AOE obliterates marines/roaches/etc. so at the lowest level AOE is ridiculously strong. If we're talking about as an esport though, i.e. the professional level then players manually spread units out.
This adds to the skill of the game, separates the high level amateurs from the pros.
We've already seen examples of it - marine splits against banelings/fungals, unit splits against tanks, Protoss death-ball spreads against EMP. This has infinite capacity to grow and may result in huge shifts in the metagame.
The unit clumping makes the game less forgiving - it is not a flaw in the game or a problem it is actually a benefit to the competitiveness of the game via raising the skill ceiling.
Yeah, I agree almost entirely with this.
In addition I see tons of games where if players had faster game speed/better mechanics to handle everything they had the potential to do at once they would absolutely dismantle their opponents. I sincerely believe that even the top players are barely scraping the surface of "good" right now.
I think the main "complaint" is that easier macro makes the skill floor higher (has nothing to do with skill ceiling, just the floor), and the unforgiving nature of the game makes it so that playing poorly in unit engagements is punished hard... which leads to them dropping games to players they feel are worse than them because they make more mistakes than their opponent in that particular game, and are unable to rely on speed-base techniques to dig themselves out of a hole.
Meh. Seems the main argument boils down to "the better player should win every time even if he makes a lot more mistakes because he's better/faster." BW also has a lot of examples of pretty 1-sided micro, where essentially one player's skill determines the outcome of the fight... yet this is bad in SC2 (whereas it's all "perfect" mechanics in BW), I see a lot of contradictory posts in that sense.
For the record, I LOVE the feel of BW. It definitely has the crisp feel that people refer to in a way that SC2 somewhat lacks. At the same time, that has nothing to do with the comparison of the actual difficulty and skill thresholds between the two. Tribes 2 had more depth and probably an equally high skill ceiling in comparison to Starsiege: Tribes, regardless of how infinitely I prefer the feel of of the original.
And for the record (somewhat on-topic since the NASL has apparently picked it up), Tribes: Ascend is an abomination of a Tribes game that isn't fit to have the name in its title.
I've played A LOT of SC2, and a lot of Tribes: Ascend (for how long it's been out) And I've already quit playing the former and will quit playing the latter unless they make some massive changes. I consider both to be abominations of their respective originals I quit video games
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
To be fair, I've heard similar comments from multiple tourny winners.
but people need to understand that this doesn't mean blizzard doesn't have the right to make the game THEY want to make. it's there game. not yours. deal with it, or better, launch a company that makes an RTS with 12 max groups, bad AI and without smart casting. shouldn't be that difficult.
I have to disagree with this statement right here. What makes a great game to a person, for me anyways, is when you can personalize the game and make it something of your own. As a community, when it accepts a game, it is essentially the communities gift at this point. If the developers label something as a sequel, it should stay true to being a sequel, and not simply a different game with the same name. The community is what made the game a success, so in some sense the community has a full right to have some decision in the making of a game.
The relationship between the game developer and the community is mutual. The community has the right to not buy a game, and given that it's in the developers best interests to make a great game so the community continues to support the franchise. However, in no way does the community have "full right to have some decision in the making of a game" and the community accepting a game isn't a "gift", it's simply people playing a game they enjoy.
All I know is I couldn't put down SC:BW and I can't even force myself to play Sc2, that says enough to me. I prefer watching Sc2 but DotA 2 is now my game of choice.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
Creep used to increase health regen for zerg units in BW iirc. Perhaps Blizzard could look into that.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
Creep used to increase health regen for zerg units in BW iirc. Perhaps Blizzard could look into that.
Nope. Creep only affected building placement, essentially Zerg pylon power. It had very little strategical value in BW.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
Creep used to increase health regen for zerg units in BW iirc. Perhaps Blizzard could look into that.
Nope. Creep only affected building placement, essentially Zerg pylon power. It had very little strategical value in BW.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
Creep used to increase health regen for zerg units in BW iirc. Perhaps Blizzard could look into that.
Nope. Creep only affected building placement, essentially Zerg pylon power. It had very little strategical value in BW.
Blizzard needs to make the game less easy... All the new units presented make the game easy mode to play instead of hard. When blizzard released its BW expansion they included lurker, medics, corsair, and just stuff that was hard to use but really awesome. Blizzard needs to figure out a way to fix their custom games. Most of the average players play on custom games don't even touch ladder. So if they implemented a similar hosting system to what BW had and bam new fun custom games for everyone...
Then they can design ladder for pros and competition and have really crazy tricky units to play around and take skill to use... But I doubt any of this will ever happen.
Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I could easily spend an entire day writing about why it is that a game of SC2 plays out differently than a game of BW. But I honestly don't think it's fun, useful or productive participating in these discussions anymore. Here's my theory about what make up the fundemental differences between SC2/BW:
The difference in worker saturation mechanics has a significant impact in the way SC2 needs to be balanced when compared to BW. As you know I spent a couple weeks of my life exploring this concept and writing a thread about it. I thought the ramifications of the so called "3 base ceiling" concept I introduced would be much more devastating than it actually turned out to be. It turned out SC2 still produces epic games, and talented players like Stephano still manage to outmacro their opponents in impressive fashions by relentlessly keeping up the pressure and constantly army trading. But there is clearly a much finer balance there in SC2 than in BW. Whenever the pressure lets up and the games so to say "stabilize" are usually the points when the games stop appearing dynamic to viewers. They then enter the predictable deathball formula, and viewers subsequently start to whine in the manner people have been in this thread.
In my view SC2 is partly predisposed to this because of how worker saturation works. Mining rates even out and hit their theoretical and practical ceilings much faster in SC2. As such the game, by necessity, needs to be balanced in a way where imbalanced ("fun spellcasters") units no longer can have a place in it. A unit that may have functioned well in BW, like the defiler, would be impossible to implement in SC2. In SC2, because of the way mining rates equalize and because of the faster tempo of games due to macro mechanics, the races and their respective units need to be balanced in a way where they perform roughly equal. As such insane unit concepts like the defiler can't exist.
If you think back to BW, you might suddenly realize just how low econ zerg used to be in ZvT. With this I particularly mean really light on minerals. The relentless terran pressure would hardly allow for any drones, and zerg had to rely on a gas heavy, tech based, cost efficient style of play with lurkers, stacked muta micro and last minute defiler defenses. In general though, zerg were expected to be 20-50 supply behind Terran in ZvT. Sometimes even more without anyone raising an eyebrow.
When Blizzard set out to design the zerg race for SC2, they sort of misinterpreted what the "swarminess" concept entailed and instead ended up designing the zerg into what they are today. From being the race with the lowest emphasis on mineral collection in the early and midgames of a match, to being the one with the highest. From a required careful and constant larva management, to basically unlimited amount or larva. From having some of the most cost efficient tech and spellcasters, to being the wasteful race with room for throwing away cheap useless ("blizzard definition swarmy") units.
Zerg in SC2 is basically how Protoss used to be played in PvT in BW. Mostly because (my own personal view) Blizzard totally misunderstood how zerg worked in BW. They attached the term "swarmy" to how zerg should feel, and then they designed a race from those specifications as best as they could. In reality what they ended up doing was making the three races even more similar than they were previously.
Of course, improved AI, macro mechanics and other factors play a large role as well. I'd like to some day sum up my accumulated thoughts on why SC2 plays out the way it does and why we won't be able to do much about it, along with why it totally won't be a huge problem for the future of the game. But I promised not to let myself get sucked into one of these threads again. This was written as a long uninterrupted train of thought, and as such went into a zerg tangent. Not meant to be interpreted as whine, but rather as examples. Zerg is obviously the race I know best (though I played Protoss in BW).
Balance arguments need lots of structuring and thought, lest it'll all come out like incoherent shit. That's the other reason I don't like engaging in these discussions. Takes lots of time to be pleased with what you've written and what you're trying to argue. Mostly ends up with you trying to argue too many points at once, without getting anything at all across. Like TT1's thread about HotS.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
I also meant to talk about warp gate mechanic and its influence. Then also about how the worker saturation mechanics influence battles toward being shorter, because there is less room for "wasteful" attacking in SC2 when mining rates have equalized. The defining factor of a game then becomes battle micro and to some extent your ability to mine slightly more gas and tech to a slightly more useful unit composition without sacrificing too much in the way of minerals.
A large part of the prolonged battle dynamics of BW were IMO a result of
A clear defender's advantage
More imbalanced tech units
Larger differences in mining rates based on the number of expansions/bases
No macro mechanics
Of course the better AI plays a huge role as well. Though to me the constricting effect of the mining rate equalization is undeniable. It hampers the fluidity and the sort of dynamics the viewers deem exciting in games.
Although I have to end this post by saying that from watching the players who currently are the best of the best, I think they're doing a pretty damn good job of keeping it fluid and dynamic. The absolute best seem to realize how SC2 needs to be played. It requires a shitton of multitasking and that's why most of us are still stuck here whining, but it seems possible from what I've seen the last seasons in GSL and from Stephano.
A bit more volatile than BW sure, but still damn entertaining when the absolute best players duke it out.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
I don't think he means that he wants BW remade. I think he means that the design team is trying too hard to not be like BW, and we've ended up in C&C territory in terms of design, rather than a true sequel to BW which builds upon it. Instead, there have been several backwards steps.
My cousin is a C&C player. (I was up until RA2 came with it's tesla coil mutant obsession and that turned me off). Tried to show him Starcraft was superior. He said it was way too different. Holding your mindset, I tried sc2. He said its basically the same thing with blocky-er graphics and now some streamlining of gameplay- too different. I was shocked, but unbiased test is unbiased test... I still wish he had visited in 2000 so I could have shown him an amazing game. I think blizz is about as close to where they want to be as they can be in today's corporate structure. I don't think C&C has much to do with it.
On December 07 2011 03:07 anastacia wrote: i lol'd at clouds answer. funny how he thinks that anyone can be really good, yet he isn't himself.
i lol'd at your answer. funny how you think he isnt good, yet he is..
Never said he was bad, heck he would beat me anytime. I said really good. That's relative as to who you are comparing him to, and I was comparing him to top pro gamers. He is certainly not really good in that way.
On December 07 2011 05:05 gayfius173 wrote: Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
Doesn't change a thing, you complain when SC2 doesn't follow your arbitrary definition of "Starcraft design". The game is still very, very much Starcraft, and your whines about smartcasting and MBS make me believe your definition of "Starcraft" is something every sane developer would avoid (for good reasons). Just cut the bullshit and go back to playing BW, its obvious you will never be satisfied with this game.
Your posts are very very relevant and useful to the discussion. /end sarcasm.
Go play some broodwar. Go play some command and conquer. Then play starcraft 2. If you've any minor amount of brain activity going on you'll quickly find out that sc2 plays more like command and conquer than it does BW. That is a problem.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I could easily spend an entire day writing about why it is that a game of SC2 plays out differently than a game of BW. But I honestly don't think it's fun, useful or productive participating in these discussions anymore. Here's my theory about what make up the fundemental differences between SC2/BW:
The difference in worker saturation mechanics has a significant impact in the way SC2 needs to be balanced when compared to BW. As you know I spent a couple weeks of my life exploring this concept and writing a thread about it. I thought the ramifications of the so called "3 base ceiling" concept I introduced would be much more devastating than it actually turned out to be. It turned out SC2 still produces epic games, and talented players like Stephano still manage to outmacro their opponents in impressive fashions by relentlessly keeping up the pressure and constantly army trading. But there is clearly a much finer balance there in SC2 than in BW. Whenever the pressure lets up and the games so to say "stabilize" are usually the points when the games stop appearing dynamic to viewers. They then enter the predictable deathball formula, and viewers subsequently start to whine in the manner people have been in this thread.
In my view SC2 is partly predisposed to this because of how worker saturation works. Mining rates even out and hit their theoretical and practical ceilings much faster in SC2. As such the game, by necessity, needs to be balanced in a way where imbalanced ("fun spellcasters") units no longer can have a place in it. A unit that may have functioned well in BW, like the defiler, would be impossible to implement in SC2. In SC2, because of the way mining rates equalize and because of the faster tempo of games due to macro mechanics, the races and their respective units need to be balanced in a way where they perform roughly equal. As such insane unit concepts like the defiler can't exist.
If you think back to BW, you might suddenly realize just how low econ zerg used to be in ZvT. With this I particularly mean really light on minerals. The relentless terran pressure would hardly allow for any drones, and zerg had to rely on a gas heavy, tech based, cost efficient style of play with lurkers, stacked muta micro and last minute defiler defenses. In general though, zerg were expected to be 20-50 supply behind Terran in ZvT. Sometimes even more without anyone raising an eyebrow.
When Blizzard set out to design the zerg race for SC2, they sort of misinterpreted what the "swarminess" concept entailed and instead ended up designing the zerg into what they are today. From being the race with the lowest emphasis on mineral collection in the early and midgames of a match, to being the one with the highest. From a required careful and constant larva management, to basically unlimited amount or larva. From having some of the most cost efficient tech and spellcasters, to being the wasteful race with room for throwing away cheap useless ("blizzard definition swarmy") units.
Zerg in SC2 is basically how Protoss used to be played in PvT in BW. Mostly because (my own personal view) Blizzard totally misunderstood how zerg worked in BW. They attached the term "swarmy" to how zerg should feel, and then they designed a race from those specifications as best as they could. In reality what they ended up doing was making the three races even more similar than they were previously.
Of course, improved AI, macro mechanics and other factors play a large role as well. I'd like to some day sum up my accumulated thoughts on why SC2 plays out the way it does and why we won't be able to do much about it, along with why it totally won't be a huge problem for the future of the game. But I promised not to let myself get sucked into one of these threads again. This was written as a long uninterrupted train of thought, and as such went into a zerg tangent. Not meant to be interpreted as whine, but rather as examples. Zerg is obviously the race I know best (though I played Protoss in BW).
Balance arguments need lots of structuring and thought, lest it'll all come out like incoherent shit. That's the other reason I don't like engaging in these discussions. Takes lots of time to be pleased with what you've written and what you're trying to argue. Mostly ends up with you trying to argue too many points at once, without getting anything at all across. Like TT1's thread about HotS.
Can I second the notion? Providing of course you have time to put it together - something organized would make front page for sure
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
Creep used to increase health regen for zerg units in BW iirc. Perhaps Blizzard could look into that.
I like inControls comments. Balancing the game might take awhile and for a newbie like me, I'm okay with taking on new units. It will give me a better chance to be good at the game. I am sure that I won't be using some of the units a whole lot since newbies tend to not try out bigger unit builds like battlecruisers, but I will be more comfortable knowing that everyone is trying to learn these units as well as me. We are all learning these units and will be pretty much all starting at square 1. At the silver level, I don't have to worry as much on the balancing of races since nobody is really doing any crazy strategies. But I feel that the pros will have a little bit of a hard time with balance because if they have a weak race, they might loose a lot more matches which might hurt their career. It really can go either way.
Wow, lol. I have faith in Blizzard. Everyone thought SC2 would be a huge complete failure, but look how it turned out. I don't think we have anything to worry about, as patches will ensure balance and stability. There are some aspects that can be abused, yes. Zerg might become a tad underpowered in heart of the swarm because of the removal of the overseer. I have no idea how people will be able to scout without the overseer. The sacrificed overlord doesn't always see what needs to be seen. This is potentially game breaking, since Zerg is a reactionary race.
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
Creep used to increase health regen for zerg units in BW iirc. Perhaps Blizzard could look into that.
you're getting it mixed up with blight (undead creep basically) in warcraft 3
The issues of zerg's "SWARM" mechanic, is the fact that they imply zerg units are weaker, they are, but the supply cap is the same. It's hard to balance a game where you have warm vs power-roll conflict if the maximum unit cap is the same(also, 200 supply is incredibly easy to reach and not very scary, and quite often completely punishes zerg macro mechanics of mass droning to overrun since you have to strictly balance your drones to not go over 100 so you can compete with the 3-base protoss's maxed army with about 30% less workers.) So how zerg usually ends up is they get 3x as many bases and protoss quickly kill the "swarmish" useless army and the build times are too long and zerg ends up being cut off from their other bases creating this situation where it is virtually impossible to be able to come close to engaging the colossi-hungry protoss. Especially on maps like tal darim where its really complicated and easy to cut reinforcements off.
On January 06 2012 11:35 Lebzetu wrote: Wow, lol. I have faith in Blizzard. Everyone thought SC2 would be a huge complete failure, but look how it turned out.
I thought everyone thought SC2 would be a good sequel to BW, I for one did.
Turned out that SC2 for me is a huge complete failure, I regret to have spent US$60 on it. I have infinitely much more fun playing BW, and thats what I have been doing. Keeping on eye on SC2 to see if some day I will ever touch it again, so far doesnt look like anytime soon...
And I agree with LaLush, they took the wrong decisions even though they were trying to get it right.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
On January 03 2012 13:36 Barrin wrote: I will pick up where LaLuSh has left off. Long in the works actually. Fruition is soon.
I want to say that I have done truly extensive research on this subject: not a single soul out there has touched the heart of issue as closely as LaLuSh has. I shall be referencing your above two posts, Mr. Lalush. I won't let you down ^^
Curious as to what you got to say Barrin.
I enjoy reading well-thought out discussions of such nature, especially from those with experience from BW. Too many of these people here on TL that only played SC2 try to defend it till their death about how they don't want SC2 to be BW, they are different games, but it's true no one does. But what these newbies don't understand that people that truly understand what made BW so dynamic, not so coin-flippy, and a clear separation of skilled and non-skilled, and also what made games REALLY fun to watch instead of large-army clash vs large-army clash is what BW vets want transferred over to SC2. Many SC2 mechanics make sense like auto-mining, and more than 12-per-controlgroup, however watch game after game of one big clash deciding the entire game gets boring.
TLDR: Don't want SC2 to be a better-looking carboncopy of BW, but instead we want all the glitz and glamour of SC2, but with some aspects that made for BW to be highly entertaining and epic in terms of watch-ability.
We can identify universal principles that made BW great while still having a completely different RTS game. Things like unit spacing and perceived army size and resulting audience excitement is just simple psychology, and BW happens to be our best evidence to submit for cross-examination.
Same thing with wasteful attacking as LaLush mentioned (aka exciting multi-pronged harass), and so on...
what Bliz should for HOTS at blizon was a joke. The way the make changes it seems i just throw an idea out there are and then balance it way later. I hope some of these changes are not done.
If Cloud didn't suck in the pro scene, I would take his opinion seriously. But I take it as "Waaahhhhhh, why can't I be better?!??!" Blame it on the game, fool, blame it on the game. Real pros never blame the game.
While it may seem whiny, his underlying message carries some merit, there's a lot of gamble and abusable aspects that allow lesser-skilled players to take games of clearly better players. I'm not saying that lesser-skilled should never be able to but, it's quite obvious and general consensus amongst top tier players that the game can be very coin-flippy.
No need to be attacking his whining, he's speaking some truth.
Yes, this game can be coin flippy, welcome to the beta, get over it. HOTS will address this. If you don't have faith in blizzard to right the wrongs, then you have been living 20 leagues under the sea (there is no internet under the sea).
To be honest, Blizzard will eventually realize their folly. They will nerf Terran bio to hell, but still keep it good enough to be viable in TvZ with insane micro (as well as buffing Ravens so they don't demolish your own shit) and also viable at the lower levels of the game. The result will be that Terran mech takes over as the top strategy, and since it's insanely hard to pull off in every fucking matchup, only the best can truly win with it and it will require tremendous skill, multitasking (oh dear God; Blink Stalkers, Hellion drops/runbys, and Mutalisks/Roach drops), and strategic sense.
Then, Zerg will lose Banelings, get back Lurkers, and will return to how they were in Broodwar (except with Broodlords and Swarm Lords or w/e). Oh, and I guess they'd get improve Queen anti-air DPS or lower Queen build times (or Hydras finally return to their rightful spot as a tier 1.5 unit that costs only 25 gas).
Finally, Colossi will be removed, Carriers will return (as a micro-able unit somehow... improved Interceptor hp?), and Protoss will receive a Reaver-like unit (essentially further nerfing bio) that creates AoE damage suicide units, a Baneling launcher if you will, so that Protoss will have "a legitimate harassing units" as well as a "legitimate way to deal with tier 1-1.5 bio (aside from Tier 3 Psi Storm)". Also, Warp Gate will somehow be nerfed such that retarded Protoss all ins are no longer possible (or VERY DAMN HARD to pull off). Protoss has other issues to fix, but they will also be fixed.
Bottom line will be that A-moving units will be removed and the game will be fixed!
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
its harder to be consistent in sc2. this is a fact. what makes you good in bw is unit control/BO vs macro
in sc2 macro is a joke and thus only one aspect separates you from your opponent, build order. if i go mutas and you blindly go blink stalkers you win. if i play standard and you play greedy you might win nothing i can do about it. if you just roll the dice u can win and most important of all is that making an army and controlling it is not only easy but battles are so short it can be over with 1 mistake in 2 seconds. in BW the fights stretch across the map as the poor AI made you slowly file in and thus the fights were longer and not game ending if it didnt go so well at first
sc2 is by far the best skill game atm (other then BW) but it is by far from being a game where the MOST skilled player ALWAYS wins. the best players in a game should win most of the time how can you argue otherwise
I think HoTS will address a lot of problems with SC2 the main ones being is ability to control your space like BW and defenders advantage more like BW thereby increasing micro needed to win battles. As of now ONLY terran has that capability and still less than BW with nerfed seige tanks.
New units and abilities such as arc shield and recall for protoss, Swarm Host for Zerg, etc will allow for real map control and micro will be far more relevant and precise needed to win offensive battles. We shall see.
I'm super excited for zerg to have a defiler again! Otherwise everything else just doesn't interest me that much. Battle hellions are alright I guess, but I'm kind of curious how mech terran will fight zerg in HotS. The lack of a thor to tank damage plus the introduction of ultra charge ought to make tank lines a little harder to pull off, even if warhounds mean that keeping muta flocks off your head gets easier. Neither warhounds nor battle hellions are going to be ideal going up against mass roach / ultra. At least we know blizzard will put in the effort to try and balance whatever they create!
On January 06 2012 13:58 ohokurwrong wrote: its harder to be consistent in sc2. this is a fact. what makes you good in bw is unit control/BO vs macro
in sc2 macro is a joke and thus only one aspect separates you from your opponent, build order. if i go mutas and you blindly go blink stalkers you win. if i play standard and you play greedy you might win nothing i can do about it. if you just roll the dice u can win and most important of all is that making an army and controlling it is not only easy but battles are so short it can be over with 1 mistake in 2 seconds. in BW the fights stretch across the map as the poor AI made you slowly file in and thus the fights were longer and not game ending if it didnt go so well at first
sc2 is by far the best skill game atm (other then BW) but it is by far from being a game where the MOST skilled player ALWAYS wins. the best players in a game should win most of the time how can you argue otherwise
Pretty much this. Like IdrA already pointed out, SC2 is like chess without vision of what your opponent is doing.
BW is not more hard to play just for the outdated UI, the skill in BW also come to control tree specific units that make the gameplay way deeper than any units in SC2, i'm speaking about vulture, lurker and reaver, blizzard should aim to introduce positioning units like that; HOTS seems to going in the right direction in regard to this.
i hope they will remove the Colossus in LOV at least.
its understandable for pro's to be worried because they spend so much time learning a game and then blizzard effectively say "hey guys we're just gonna change the entire game and make it a new game".
but for spectators, the new units and changes are fecking awesome and (at first glance) appear to be designed to make sc2 more exciting by fixing the boring stuff like deathballs.
I love how this thread started with comments from pros about HotS (which are COMPLETELY worthless because none of them or us or anyone has played a released version of the game yet) and slowly evolved into the ever existing SC2 vs BW, newcomer vs oldschool, "BW was so much better" discussion (in which LaLush is pretty much the only one who is constructive).
Everyone should chill and just wait for Blizzard to do their things. You can evaluate what they did when you actually got a finished product and more than "Hey look at this, we thought these are cool unit ideas, but half of them will probably get scrapped 3 months from now and we didn't do any balancing so far whatsoever". I think most of us can agree that WoL wasn't the top of our dreams when you compare it to BW, but it comes pretty close and is a good game. If you hate it then don't discuss about it, BW is still existing and you can play (and watch) it on a high level. 2 Addons are still to come for SC2 and we can only really compare BW and SC2 once Legacy of the Void is out and established itself in a period of time.
Really, half of the thread just animates to shake your head relentlessly. Something that is usually only be seen in the Starcraft 2 Strategy Forum.
This is a great article, I really enjoyed the read. I too, suspect that there will be a tonne of nerfs, and even some units being added/taken out.
I have to really agree to WhiteRa, Protoss is becoming WAY too gas heavy...also...the Oracle? The hell is that? I guess it'll be good for scouting, but I don't like the 'passive harass' style of this unit.
But having said that, if there's one gaming company I trust to make a game amazing, it's Blizzard.
EDIT: I also take issue with the Tempest. It really seems to me that it's a late game solution to a mid-game issue...Protoss have a hard time dealing with Muta's around the 10 minute mark, which is far from when you'll have Carriers (which is being replaced by the Tempest, so I assume the tech tree will be the same?)
On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
To be fair, I've heard similar comments from multiple tourny winners.
Like Idra. Notice how there's a wildly different set of winner/2nd/3rd every time. The asme is not true to BW.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
I strongly agree with the point made that HoTS has to be relatively balanced before it is used in any tournament... This would probably take quite a bit of time with the addition of all the units though so I wonder how the pros would adapt.
I hope they make the beta period very long for hots to get it right for release... oh and i hope they have more changes than just the units, now would be the time to experiment.
I'm not so sure if the pros mentioned this. But why does it seem like every new unit that's coming out is targetted at terran? Almost seems like blizzard is trying to eliminate terran altogether. Hell, even the new terran unit is meant to counter tanks.
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful. If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
why no one, have changed the bad things about sc2, with the editor? like removing the marauder, colosus and roach, and tweak some other stuff, to see what would happen
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps
This is a surprisingly good point. Anybody can step up and create the game that supposedly everybody wants. Dota is a fan made map, and look where it got to now. Why cant the same happen again?
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps
This is a surprisingly good point. Anybody can step up and create the game that supposedly everybody wants. Dota is a fan made map, and look where it got to now. Why cant the same happen again?
Because it turns out game development is freaking hard - at least much more difficult than people seem to believe.
On December 08 2011 11:25 LaLuSh wrote: I also meant to talk about warp gate mechanic and its influence. Then also about how the worker saturation mechanics influence battles toward being shorter, because there is less room for "wasteful" attacking in SC2 when mining rates have equalized. The defining factor of a game then becomes battle micro and to some extent your ability to mine slightly more gas and tech to a slightly more useful unit composition without sacrificing too much in the way of minerals.
A large part of the prolonged battle dynamics of BW were IMO a result of
A clear defender's advantage
More imbalanced tech units
Larger differences in mining rates based on the number of expansions/bases
No macro mechanics
Of course the better AI plays a huge role as well. Though to me the constricting effect of the mining rate equalization is undeniable. It hampers the fluidity and the sort of dynamics the viewers deem exciting in games.
Although I have to end this post by saying that from watching the players who currently are the best of the best, I think they're doing a pretty damn good job of keeping it fluid and dynamic. The absolute best seem to realize how SC2 needs to be played. It requires a shitton of multitasking and that's why most of us are still stuck here whining, but it seems possible from what I've seen the last seasons in GSL and from Stephano.
A bit more volatile than BW sure, but still damn entertaining when the absolute best players duke it out.
I really have to agree with this and think about it SC2 is not even 2 years old. I don't know from experience but I don't think that BW as awesome to watch as it is now in the early days. Give it some time and enjoy (and copy) the players who seem to get the game
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
The example you cited about terran mech may be something a lot of players want to see but the 1 hour mech wars with only small positioning changes are the very thing that made people passionately hate TvT in the first place. Mech can be very exciting to use because at any point you could lose your whole army to a single miss-position, however since a great mech player doesnt do mistakes such as that it amounts to a bunch of I move forward you move ack you move forward I move back games that discourage people from watching mech vs mech.
When people talk about HotS not "saving" sc2 they are often referring to the people who think the game is broken expecting some major overhaul when one is not needed.
Also you example of removing high level micro requires a better example than the carrier. The sc2 carrier doenst really have much micro to it and any buff probably would not change that to a major degree. While I am against prejudging a unit I havnt used I expect that any micro I can do with the new capital ship is a step up in terms of sc2 carrier micro.
Also you example of removing high level micro requires a better example than the carrier. The sc2 carrier doenst really have much micro to it and any buff probably would not change that to a major degree. While I am against prejudging a unit I havnt used I expect that any micro I can do with the new capital ship is a step up in terms of sc2 carrier micro.
Yes, but defending against muta ask for micro as well as using mutas. The new unit they want to bring in will remove that. So instead of making Carriers a good micro unit they are going to remove other micro from the game.
Also you example of removing high level micro requires a better example than the carrier. The sc2 carrier doenst really have much micro to it and any buff probably would not change that to a major degree. While I am against prejudging a unit I havnt used I expect that any micro I can do with the new capital ship is a step up in terms of sc2 carrier micro.
Yes, but defending against muta ask for micro as well as using mutas. The new unit they want to bring in will remove that. So instead of making Carriers a good micro unit they are going to remove other micro from the game.
If thats the only defense the protoss uses against mutas i can imagine it being magic boxed away as quick as a thor would be. You still are going to need blink stalkers and high templar with maybe an archon or 2 mixed in to deal with the mass mutas that exist now; its just that now there will be another tool to make mutas more managable. Its really really hard to judge just one of these changes in a bottle not counting any of the other changes which by the way add so many micro elements that it might just be overkill.
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful. If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
i think blizzard will do a fine job of balancing HOTS, assuming they close off online play for WOL, so they can focusing solely on balancing HOTS. however, it will take a lot of time (about 1 year), just like it did for WOL.
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful. If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
I meant harder scouting as in observers be removed. Terran should have scans be double cost. Zerg is fine, zerg already has all coinflip situations in the early game. If observers were removed it would atleast make hallucination be used more, i.e make the game more interesting because no protoss uses hallucination more than 3 times for scouting, but would make some cool things like hallucinating a colossus to get vision of the high ground, some things I've only seen a few times that are sorta brilliant.
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful. If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
I meant harder scouting as in observers be removed. Terran should have scans be double cost. Zerg is fine, zerg already has all coinflip situations in the early game. If observers were removed it would atleast make hallucination be used more, i.e make the game more interesting because no protoss uses hallucination more than 3 times for scouting, but would make some cool things like hallucinating a colossus to get vision of the high ground, some things I've only seen a few times that are sorta brilliant.
You do know that obs are used for more than scouting right? And by the way your following points are way off.
I'm not so sure if the pros mentioned this. But why does it seem like every new unit that's coming out is targeted at Terran? Almost seems like blizzard is trying to eliminate terran altogether. Hell, even the new Terran unit is meant to counter tanks.
It seems that way because you are clearly a biased Terran who is apathetic of the other races concerns, therefore seeing everything they have in a negative "anti-Terran" light. How can anyone being objective see Tempets' as dominantly anti-Terran? How are Oracles disproportionally anti-Terran? Heck, Replicators are about as neutral as they come. Vipers and Swarm Hosts I can see where you may be coming from, but 2 units that allow Z to be supposedly at least evenly cost effective while attacking a defended position (when they currently have nothing that fills that roll), is hardly anti Terran. If anything it gives them options they should have had at release (options that due to gas cost will lock out other options, so don't think that it's current Zerg army strength + new shit).
Lalush's post was great, after that the whole thing went pretty fast (again) down the sc2 vs bw thing. IMHO it's not possible to tell from what they ve shown how HOTS will play out, lets just wait and see.
"I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit" furthermore I think the other units are very boring. I wouldn't have been surprised if the day they presented the units was April first."
Pretty much says it all. I hope Blizzard gets its shit together before an aggravating imba beta period.
In my opinion, the new units are decent apart from the replicant and the thing that replaced the mothership (forgot its name). Both of these things are pretty poor in my opinion. But I love the Oracle so it'll do. .
The post above mine raises some good points though.
everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful. If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
I meant harder scouting as in observers be removed. Terran should have scans be double cost. Zerg is fine, zerg already has all coinflip situations in the early game. If observers were removed it would atleast make hallucination be used more, i.e make the game more interesting because no protoss uses hallucination more than 3 times for scouting, but would make some cool things like hallucinating a colossus to get vision of the high ground, some things I've only seen a few times that are sorta brilliant.
Why? Just because observer scouting and terran scanning is boring? I don't understand the reasoning behind these changes, i don't think the scouting department is unbalanced. And you are so obviously zerg, lol.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
cloud is part of those lesser players, so what he says does not matter.
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
cloud is part of those lesser players, so what he says does not matter.
okay so when is someone right and we dont like it we will discredit him right ? Wake up man...
I'm just wondering, what will be the counter for broodlord/infestor for toss with no Mothership/archon toilet, or the newer carrier deathball? They are removing the 2 counters to the broodlord/infestor combo. Surely they must realize this problem...
Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
Why won't they? Are they afraid it would hurt esports or all of that ciclejerk? Are people that weakminded? Being honest is such an hard thing to do? Blizzard won't change shit (implying there's stuff to change of course) if relevant people in the community don't drop this thin veil of hypocrity, highlight stuff etc, bring issues to the table, give out advices out and loud, since an expansion is coming in 2012.
I'm sick, soo sick by this, I cannot stand hypocrites. If something's SHITTY, if something's BAD or CAN BE IMPROVED, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TALK ABOUT IT. Things WON'T get better magically or whatever, blizzard cannot figure out everything by themselves (as much as they would love to, arrogants as they are).
You know what? The very fact you are bringing up this issue, shows that deep down you actually CARE about the game, (ofc you do, it's your job lol).
Remember guys, being blind fanboys is BAD for everything in the world, criticizing and judging shows that you actually care/like something enough to spend portions of your time improving it.
I know I'm late with this quoting but this was a really good comment, you have to be critical and not just fanboying sc2 "because it's such an awesome game". But I also have to say that people like artosis have fought so much for sc2 being an e-sport, he can't really say "it's a shitty game", that would destroy so much. Even if he sees the problems he thinks the best is to say "it's such an awesome game" instead of hating on it, because blizzard doesn't really listen so much to the community anyway (clantags, lan support, change names, ladder map pool, etc etc etc etc). Artosis wants to hype the game up so much that he is like on every cast he's doing he's saying "THIS SERIES IS THE BEST SERIES EVER", just to hype the people up.
I understand artosis position though and won't blame him for not attacking sc2, but I really agree with you on that people have to stop being fanboys on everything. Remember at sc2 release when like tons of people said "the game is close to balanced" when maps like steppes, kulas, lost temple, delta quad was in the map pool etc? The ignorance and saying "everything is fine, stop QQ" is everywhere unfortunately, so I just had to quote you because you are so right about what you said. Oh I just changed my signature so i will look really whiny now lol
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
cloud is part of those lesser players, so what he says does not matter.
What's your response to when guys like Idra and other top pros say the exact same thing?
Get over yourselves, Cloud is 1000% more knowledgeable about the game than you are, regardless of whether you consider him a lower class foreigner or a higher class one, and his opinion has a lot of good points in it, that at the very least you should be willing to look at and decipher instead of spewing this "he's bad so he doesn't know" crap, because under that pretense you shouldn't even be posting.
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful. If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
I meant harder scouting as in observers be removed. Terran should have scans be double cost. Zerg is fine, zerg already has all coinflip situations in the early game. If observers were removed it would atleast make hallucination be used more, i.e make the game more interesting because no protoss uses hallucination more than 3 times for scouting, but would make some cool things like hallucinating a colossus to get vision of the high ground, some things I've only seen a few times that are sorta brilliant.
You actually think the game would benefit from MORE coinflips? Don't you see the problem with all the zerg coinflips? Do you want terran and protoss to have the same problems? Why not just buff zerg scouting if you think there's an imbalance?
Nobody would scan anymore and it would be much harder to scout as protoss (and what about observer detection, do you think protoss should place cannons everywhere instead? I would go cloak banshees every game against protoss if they removed observer)
This would only lead to that there would be more coinflips, less skilled players winning and every noob would go holy shit i can allin every game and win now. BW was a good game because a ton of builds/timings got figured out and it became more of a chess game, but you actually want to make SC2 MORE like a game where everybody can win, it's more a matter of randomness?
If there was a vote on which was the worst post on tl.net I would vote your post. Sorry but it's true.
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
cloud is part of those lesser players, so what he says does not matter.
What's your response to when guys like Idra and other top pros say the exact same thing?
Get over yourselves, Cloud is 1000% more knowledgeable about the game than you are, regardless of whether you consider him a lower class foreigner or a higher class one, and his opinion has a lot of good points in it, that at the very least you should be willing to look at and decipher instead of spewing this "he's bad so he doesn't know" crap, because under that pretense you shouldn't even be posting.
Idra is also not a top pro. Maybe if someone like Mvp, Fin (due to BW background), or someone like that says something it might mean something... but 'top' foreigner pro opinions are no more valid than any random GM/high Masters.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
Are you talking about the same Blizzard that helped to design 5rax reaper?
Protoss doesn't need a mothership replacement that's only good for countering mutalisks.
Make Phoenix range longer by 1. Right now, Phoenix is just slightly too hard to kite against Mutas in larger numbers, but +1 range should make it much more viable. That is also better because the Phoenix has more than 1 purpose, unlike the AOE air unit they are proposing.
There is precedence for this too. Roaches were supposed to counter Hellions like Phoenix were supposed to counter Mutas, but they didn't work correctly until they got +1 range. They've also added +1 range to Immortals to make them more useful against Tanks for the 1/1/1 in particular. Since they have plenty of precedence for a +1 range balance change, why don't they at least try it for the Phoenix?
It won't break PvP since Phoenix won't suddenly smash Colo from far away, they'll still get hit by Stalkers. It won't break PvT, since Vikings will still far out range them. It might help PvZ to deal with Mutas.
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
cloud is part of those lesser players, so what he says does not matter.
What's your response to when guys like Idra and other top pros say the exact same thing?
Get over yourselves, Cloud is 1000% more knowledgeable about the game than you are, regardless of whether you consider him a lower class foreigner or a higher class one, and his opinion has a lot of good points in it, that at the very least you should be willing to look at and decipher instead of spewing this "he's bad so he doesn't know" crap, because under that pretense you shouldn't even be posting.
Idra is also not a top pro. Maybe if someone like Mvp, Fin (due to BW background), or someone like that says something it might mean something... but 'top' foreigner pro opinions are no more valid than any random GM/high Masters.
Idra says a lot of stupid things but this is actually one of the things that is true. Koreans would never say that the game isn't balanced, they would say they need to practice more, but I'm sure they feel the same way at least until the game gets more figured out
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
cloud is part of those lesser players, so what he says does not matter.
What's your response to when guys like Idra and other top pros say the exact same thing?
Get over yourselves, Cloud is 1000% more knowledgeable about the game than you are, regardless of whether you consider him a lower class foreigner or a higher class one, and his opinion has a lot of good points in it, that at the very least you should be willing to look at and decipher instead of spewing this "he's bad so he doesn't know" crap, because under that pretense you shouldn't even be posting.
Idra is also not a top pro. Maybe if someone like Mvp, Fin (due to BW background), or someone like that says something it might mean something... but 'top' foreigner pro opinions are no more valid than any random GM/high Masters.
MVP even said he switched over because SC2 is a lot easier, I don't even see how this is an arguement. But whatever, keep making excuses.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
Are you talking about the same Blizzard that helped to design 5rax reaper?
How's that strategy working out these days? Might want to read what the guy you quoted said:
(HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues)
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
There is a huge hole in your logic (much like the design of SC2). Why would talented designers and great minds waste their time on a game no one would play? It doesn't matter if you can theoretically make a better game or not. You need a large pool of players to properly balance a game. Balance isn't everything though, if the units aren't organic in their roles and are simply assigned as 'hard-counters' the game becomes very coin-flippy and teeter-totter style game play instead of a graceful duel. There is always more than one direction you can balance something.
Don't get me wrong, SC2 is a good game, but there are some huge holes in the design that are impeding it from becoming a very good game.
"Rock-paper-scissors is a pretty balanced game but it still sucks competitively." For me it seems like people are too worried about balance. We should be worried about luck and randomness in general and try to increase the skillcap as much as possible without moving back to stone-age AI.
Thats some pretty words, but how exactly can we remove luck and increase skillcap? -First of all we should have clear defenders edge, which we have to some extent with ramps and chokes, but ramps/cliffs could give additional advengate for those who are above, something like +armor or whatnot. Additionally warpgates are breaking defenders edge too quickly, giving protoss strong allins, in order to balance this earlygate units have to suck.
-Reliable scouting. We do have strong scouters such as observer, overseer and scan but its not good enough because scans can miss the tech buildings, observers/overseers come out way too late. To fix this we could have overlord speed upgrade on tier1 and hallucination could to be viable but currently it cant be researched because warpgate is necessary. Terrans allready have pretty viable scouting methods even if scan misses (reaper, flying buildings)
-Melee micro. Microing something like zealots vs zerglings is doable, especially in the early game, but microing zealots against marines and other rangers is basically clicking A-button and checking you have the speed upgrade done. I have no clue how to include more meleemicro when the autosurround system exists.
-Positional units, im sure everyone who has played sc1 knows how interesting and challenging using defilers, lurkers and tanks can be. On sc2 its just terrans with their tanks frogleapping forward, takes lots of babysitting and is very cool, but other races should feel the love aswell, luckily we are getting replicators and swarmhosts.
Just read the topic and its all about pros opinions. This post has little to none to do with that but im going to post it anyway . Anyways i think cloud is right and people dissing clouds opinions just because he isnt #1 in the world is ridiculous. For me it feels like people think "cloud is just a crybaby who's saying all his losses come due to lucky enemies not him being shit". Meanwhile i feel like he is saying "Hell, i have won some games just because opponent did the wrong build, whats the point in that?"
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
There is a huge hole in your logic (much like the design of SC2). Why would talented designers and great minds waste their time on a game no one would play? It doesn't matter if you can theoretically make a better game or not. You need a large pool of players to properly balance a game. Balance isn't everything though, if the units aren't organic in their roles and are simply assigned as 'hard-counters' the game becomes very coin-flippy and teeter-totter style game play instead of a graceful duel. There is always more than one direction you can balance something.
Don't get me wrong, SC2 is a good game, but there are some huge holes in the design that are impeding it from becoming a very good game.
People on this forum seem to be suggesting that these "huge holes" are rather easy to fix, I take issue with that. I think Blizzard simply has more resources, and more incentive to fix these huge holes, they also have two expansions and massive amounts of playtesters to help them fix SC2's larger issues.
People have every right to criticize SC2's gameplay. People should certainly speak up about what they think SC2's major flaws are. But to suggest that the SC2 design team is completely ignorant and incompetent, and that one talented game designer in his basement using the map editor could fix all of SC2's problems is a little naive and incredibly ignorant about the massive amount of interactions between units and abilities that need to be considered in SC2.
p.s. someone mentioned 5rax reaper, Blizzard didn't design 5rax reaper, it developed by accident as a result of the game and was patched and dealt with. Blizzard saw, Blizzard listened, and Blizzard fixed it, let's hope they continue this trend (lest the SC2 naysayers and Blizzard haters be proven right).
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
Are you joking? Lesser players beat better players ALL THE TIME in BW and IT STILL HAPPENS TODAY in BW. Saying a lesser player can't beat a better player in BW is beyond bullshit.
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
Are you joking? Lesser players beat better players ALL THE TIME in BW and IT STILL HAPPENS TODAY in BW. Saying a lesser player can't beat a better player in BW is beyond bullshit.
Lesser player in bw can easily beat a better player one year after the game came out. Give sc2 some time damn it, and please stop comparing a really well developed game to a fresh game, which balance changes every few weeks. Half the stupid shit one could loose to a year ago is already no longer possible, and I'm sure another year or two down the road it will get even better. And even now better players start to consistently beat lesser players. Every single time a following game comes out where we don't see some random nerd rape everyone all the time people talk the exact same bullshit, luckily a few years down the line some random nerd does keep raping everyone and people start to shut up.
On January 09 2012 03:11 mrRoflpwn wrote: everyone that hates on cloud should know that he was a top foreign BroodWar player- and he is pretty much right about the gamble aspect- in broodwar a lesser player could NEVER beat a greater player- in SC2 lesser players are constantly upsetting players who are better
Are you joking? Lesser players beat better players ALL THE TIME in BW and IT STILL HAPPENS TODAY in BW. Saying a lesser player can't beat a better player in BW is beyond bullshit.
You have no clue what you're talking about, do you ?
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
There is a huge hole in your logic (much like the design of SC2). Why would talented designers and great minds waste their time on a game no one would play? It doesn't matter if you can theoretically make a better game or not. You need a large pool of players to properly balance a game. Balance isn't everything though, if the units aren't organic in their roles and are simply assigned as 'hard-counters' the game becomes very coin-flippy and teeter-totter style game play instead of a graceful duel. There is always more than one direction you can balance something.
Don't get me wrong, SC2 is a good game, but there are some huge holes in the design that are impeding it from becoming a very good game.
People on this forum seem to be suggesting that these "huge holes" are rather easy to fix, I take issue with that. I think Blizzard simply has more resources, and more incentive to fix these huge holes, they also have two expansions and massive amounts of playtesters to help them fix SC2's larger issues.
People have every right to criticize SC2's gameplay. People should certainly speak up about what they think SC2's major flaws are. But to suggest that the SC2 design team is completely ignorant and incompetent, and that one talented game designer in his basement using the map editor could fix all of SC2's problems is a little naive and incredibly ignorant about the massive amount of interactions between units and abilities that need to be considered in SC2.
p.s. someone mentioned 5rax reaper, Blizzard didn't design 5rax reaper, it developed by accident as a result of the game and was patched and dealt with. Blizzard saw, Blizzard listened, and Blizzard fixed it, let's hope they continue this trend (lest the SC2 naysayers and Blizzard haters be proven right).
Exactly. Blizzard has said they don't design balanced units, because that is impossible. They build units that they think will result in interesting gameplay and then balance them based on the the feed back they receive. If you listen to interviews from the design team, they said that creep spread was thought to be a stupid, useless mechanic that no one would use. They were suprised that creep spread is one of the more important parties of zerg play and is the sign of a really good player. They also expected the immortal to be a unit used to tank, but players use it mostly for its burst damage, while the zealot tanks.
If you want to take another example of designing something based on feedback, take a look at the Iphone. On release the Iphone had none of the features we know it for today. No app store, limited storage, no twitter or facebook. Nothing that defines the Iphone and the market that enjoyes it. It is because Apple builds products and then improves them in the ways people use them.
There are parts of SC2 that I would like to see improved, but I do not believe that Blizzard is flawed in the way they made it. There are things I would like to see, better feedback control groups(icons over the units), a more stable early game so we can get beyond 2 bases and really macro and so on. But all of this will take time and effort on both sides. But the people who say "Blizzard could have made a better game, but didn't" are silly. Starcraft 1 was an poorly balanced nightmare with no replays when it came out. Its a refine esport now, but its over 10 years later.
I feel like the new units will become a: You either abuse the new units every game or you just lose. Where although the new units for each race may balance each other, they are overpowered compared to the WoL units.
I wish there were tech animations for every single upgrade so a scout can see exactly what you are researching. (Like a spinning animation on a tech lab for stim, a freezing/thawing animation for combat shield, etc., something esoteric but distinctly shows the tech path).
------------------------ To be truly balanced, just make starcraft have 1 race. (but then it won't be starcraft)
I agree with cloud in general. Its going to be a mess when the expansion comes out and I have little faith in Blizzards current game design team(the unit department).
I honestly think there are 3 problems with SC2: The maps. They're just not quite there yet. Daybreak is a start. Tal'darim is great, but has terrible mirror matchups etc. Once the maps are sorted, gameplay will improve a huge amount. The players. 90% of bad or boring games are as a result of bad play. The better players are, the more entertaining the games are. Once again this will get better with time. The only problems that Blizzard have are (and this is all in my opinion) 3 units, ironically, one for each race. Colossus, Marauder, and Corruptor. I honestly think that if these 3 units were different, then SC2 really wouldn't need any more changing. The game is already pretty fucking amazing as it. When Toss play multitask based, When Terran play is centred around the tank, when Zerg play ling bling Muta, the game already plays really nicely.
On January 10 2012 04:22 MCDayC wrote: I honestly think there are 3 problems with SC2: The maps. They're just not quite there yet. Daybreak is a start. Tal'darim is great, but has terrible mirror matchups etc. Once the maps are sorted, gameplay will improve a huge amount. The players. 90% of bad or boring games are as a result of bad play. The better players are, the more entertaining the games are. Once again this will get better with time. The only problems that Blizzard have are (and this is all in my opinion) 3 units, ironically, one for each race. Colossus, Marauder, and Corruptor. I honestly think that if these 3 units were different, then SC2 really wouldn't need any more changing. The game is already pretty fucking amazing as it. When Toss play multitask based, When Terran play is centred around the tank, when Zerg play ling bling Muta, the game already plays really nicely.
The number one thing that I think needs to be improved is a significant reduction in how much luck plays into the game currently. There are a far and extreme amount of games now where it is essentially decided by the luck of the draw in the beginning, the rest is simply the players playing it out and hoping for a come-back.
As cloud says, there are a lot of players who just abuse this VERY swingy luck mechanic to get where they are now, banking on the fact that they get essentially free-wins 50%+ of the time because of the types of strats they use. The mark of the truly great players are the ones that can still win after being unlucky off the bat.
On January 09 2012 13:39 suxN wrote: -First of all we should have clear defenders edge, which we have to some extent with ramps and chokes, but ramps/cliffs could give additional advengate for those who are above, something like +armor or whatnot. Additionally warpgates are breaking defenders edge too quickly, giving protoss strong allins, in order to balance this earlygate units have to suck.
-Reliable scouting. We do have strong scouters such as observer, overseer and scan but its not good enough because scans can miss the tech buildings, observers/overseers come out way too late. To fix this we could have overlord speed upgrade on tier1 and hallucination could to be viable but currently it cant be researched because warpgate is necessary. Terrans allready have pretty viable scouting methods even if scan misses (reaper, flying buildings)
-Melee micro. Microing something like zealots vs zerglings is doable, especially in the early game, but microing zealots against marines and other rangers is basically clicking A-button and checking you have the speed upgrade done. I have no clue how to include more meleemicro when the autosurround system exists.
-Positional units, im sure everyone who has played sc1 knows how interesting and challenging using defilers, lurkers and tanks can be. On sc2 its just terrans with their tanks frogleapping forward, takes lots of babysitting and is very cool, but other races should feel the love aswell, luckily we are getting replicators and swarmhosts. "
Good post, removed some of it so mine wouldn't be too bloated.
I very much agree with the first point. The defenders advantage needs to be bigger and the power of coinflippy cheeses and all-ins needs to be smaller. I would personally like to see the cliff advantage returned, and for example stronger queens for zerg to compensate the lack of defendable cliffs.
I'm not sure I agree with the scouting problem. I don't want both players to have perfect information, there needs to be the element of surprise. I'd rather have "safe" builds to be safer against all sorts of random all-ins, without sacrificing economy too much.
I don't see how the third point can be fixed really. Terran is getting a stronger counter to mass zealot, so that should make the a-move zealot/archon a little less viable.
On January 08 2012 09:06 Kare wrote: I just have to post this great picture in this thread, because it answers most of the comments in a way
you'd be surprised. WHen Im sure, I end up wrong 50% of tjhe time or more. When I'm not sure and seem not to know, I usually and perfectly correct. Its a pain in the ass to deal with, because its like George Costanza, DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU FEEL!... lol.
On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote: Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW.
It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game.
The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things:
- The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player).
- Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc).
- The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air...
- The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor.
- The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change.
- Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again.
SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
There is so far no evidence that the community can make a better SC2 than Blizzard. Someone suggested DotA was an example of this, but that is entirely subjective since DoTa and standard WC3:TFT are completely different games, it would be suggesting Nexus Wars is better than SC2 multiplayer.
Fact: Blizzard has far more tools than the community. Blizzard originally aimed for 1 expansion a year, but due to their quality assurance is likely only going to release HotS once they are reasonably satisfied it actually improves the gameplay (HotS may not do everything YOU want it to do, but you can reasonably expect it to improve SC2 multiplayer once post-patching has fixed major issues).
If someone thinks they can redesign SC2 better than Blizzard I would love to see their efforts. Who knows, maybe someone can make a better HotS than Blizzard but I certainly do not expect it to happen.
There is a huge hole in your logic (much like the design of SC2). Why would talented designers and great minds waste their time on a game no one would play? It doesn't matter if you can theoretically make a better game or not. You need a large pool of players to properly balance a game. Balance isn't everything though, if the units aren't organic in their roles and are simply assigned as 'hard-counters' the game becomes very coin-flippy and teeter-totter style game play instead of a graceful duel. There is always more than one direction you can balance something.
Don't get me wrong, SC2 is a good game, but there are some huge holes in the design that are impeding it from becoming a very good game.
People on this forum seem to be suggesting that these "huge holes" are rather easy to fix, I take issue with that. I think Blizzard simply has more resources, and more incentive to fix these huge holes, they also have two expansions and massive amounts of playtesters to help them fix SC2's larger issues.
People have every right to criticize SC2's gameplay. People should certainly speak up about what they think SC2's major flaws are. But to suggest that the SC2 design team is completely ignorant and incompetent, and that one talented game designer in his basement using the map editor could fix all of SC2's problems is a little naive and incredibly ignorant about the massive amount of interactions between units and abilities that need to be considered in SC2.
p.s. someone mentioned 5rax reaper, Blizzard didn't design 5rax reaper, it developed by accident as a result of the game and was patched and dealt with. Blizzard saw, Blizzard listened, and Blizzard fixed it, let's hope they continue this trend (lest the SC2 naysayers and Blizzard haters be proven right).
Exactly. Blizzard has said they don't design balanced units, because that is impossible. They build units that they think will result in interesting gameplay and then balance them based on the the feed back they receive. If you listen to interviews from the design team, they said that creep spread was thought to be a stupid, useless mechanic that no one would use. They were suprised that creep spread is one of the more important parties of zerg play and is the sign of a really good player. They also expected the immortal to be a unit used to tank, but players use it mostly for its burst damage, while the zealot tanks.
If you want to take another example of designing something based on feedback, take a look at the Iphone. On release the Iphone had none of the features we know it for today. No app store, limited storage, no twitter or facebook. Nothing that defines the Iphone and the market that enjoyes it. It is because Apple builds products and then improves them in the ways people use them.
There are parts of SC2 that I would like to see improved, but I do not believe that Blizzard is flawed in the way they made it. There are things I would like to see, better feedback control groups(icons over the units), a more stable early game so we can get beyond 2 bases and really macro and so on. But all of this will take time and effort on both sides. But the people who say "Blizzard could have made a better game, but didn't" are silly. Starcraft 1 was an poorly balanced nightmare with no replays when it came out. Its a refine esport now, but its over 10 years later.
yesh, and creep spread is a terrible mechanic. DOnt say they didnt intend it to be used because zerg units are slow as shit off it. Immortal is a terrible unit, it was designed to perform one role, and people are using it for bust damage while its insanely hard to kill off if protoss has semi-competence. It even does significant damage to units it has nerfed damage against, e.g. light.
blizzard is trying to make themselves look smart while designing horrible units by saying this. Also, look at the beginning interview of dustimn browder. He made colossus and burrow roaches to "raid" bases. colossus are supposed to climb cliffs to kill probes because, and I quote in his words "Its cool". that is NO basis for creating game units that are balanced. There needs to be a damn good reason for introducing something potentially game changing like being able to walk over cliffs and enemy/friendly units.
roach raiding is mostly over and done with at higher leagues. By the time it comes out, all races have a form of detection.
Lets be honest, the original blizzard design team never said these things, and their units mostly stayed true to their intended design. Sc2, almost all units have to be used in UNINTENDED ways because they suck for their intended purpose. Remember that dustin browder came from C&C which was famous for Tank vs tank end game because everything else sucked realistically. (if you dont believe me, Stalker is a support/raid unit massed as the main unit for protoss 99% of the time, bane bombs from overlords to deal with deathball because of force fields and other nonsense, mass infestor fungal before nerf because zerg lacks anti-deathball/AoE otherwise, mass thors instead of 2 or 3 used as support/base of fire units during fights because they just rape so hard, etc).
To the above poster: BW units do not follow their "intended design" either but have evolved far beyond that. This includes techniques that almost qualify as glitches or bugs, such as muta stacking and hold position lurkers.
Does that mean BW is also a horribly designed game in your eyes?
On January 10 2012 14:15 Bagi wrote: To the above poster: BW units do not follow their "intended design" either but have evolved far beyond that. This includes techniques that almost qualify as glitches or bugs, such as muta stacking and hold position lurkers.
Does that mean BW is also a horribly designed game in your eyes?
brood war units follow their intended use much more closely. Stacked mutas may not have been "designed purposefully", they still are still used in their INTENDED USE. don't try to change the goalposts on the issue. They're still used the same way there were designed.
zergling, hydra, lurker, tank are all still used in the way they were designed to be used. The same does not hold true for most sc2 units, which is why, for example, immortals got +1 range.
What was the intended purpose of mutalisks in the first place? Blizzard never gave you one in the first place, thats why you may think that they are being used for their intended purpose. The players have developed a purpose for the units, you just dont have a Blizzard post or statement that might contradict it.
On the other hand you are taking Blizzard quotes of examples how a unit MUST be used, and when the unit gets unit in different ways you somehow condemn it as "bad design". Does it even matter what the original purpose was as long as the unit is viable? BW is full of happy coincidences that surely cannot be called intentional or "good design" but end up making the game better anyway, that was the point of my whole post. Stop looking for things to nitpick about and try to appreciate the fact that these units have found new purpose.
On January 08 2012 09:06 Kare wrote: I just have to post this great picture in this thread, because it answers most of the comments in a way
Great pic. This is known as The Dunning–Kruger Effect by the way. I see it with SC comments a lot (that's why i've learnt to shut up about balance etc )
I find it pretty hard to fathom how people can say HotS will be broken and WoL already is, but I guess in a game where basically everyone loses 50% of the time there's going to be frustrated people who blame the game.
Ok, first off, what does this mean? That is barely english. Did I miss out on some internet lingo in the last 2 years?
On January 10 2012 09:49 Humanfails wrote:
blizzard is trying to make themselves look smart while designing horrible units by saying this. Also, look at the beginning interview of dustimn browder. He made colossus and burrow roaches to "raid" bases. colossus are supposed to climb cliffs to kill probes because, and I quote in his words "Its cool". that is NO basis for creating game units that are balanced. There needs to be a damn good reason for introducing something potentially game changing like being able to walk over cliffs and enemy/friendly units.
roach raiding is mostly over and done with at higher leagues. By the time it comes out, all races have a form of detection.
Lets be honest, the original blizzard design team never said these things, and their units mostly stayed true to their intended design. Sc2, almost all units have to be used in UNINTENDED ways because they suck for their intended purpose. Remember that dustin browder came from C&C which was famous for Tank vs tank end game because everything else sucked realistically. (if you dont believe me, Stalker is a support/raid unit massed as the main unit for protoss 99% of the time, bane bombs from overlords to deal with deathball because of force fields and other nonsense, mass infestor fungal before nerf because zerg lacks anti-deathball/AoE otherwise, mass thors instead of 2 or 3 used as support/base of fire units during fights because they just rape so hard, etc).
I did not watch any BW, but I would love someone to compair it's first year of 1v1 play to current BW play. I won't even make you go back to Starcraft-Prime to see how developed the game was. I am willing to bet it looks nothing like the refined game that TL holds up as the model for the perfect RTS.
This is the problem when people bitch about the design of SC2 and the problems with the game. Blizzard did not make BW great, the players did. Blizzard only made a game that had enough depth to allow them to do so. The difference this time around is that Blizzard knows that. They only want to make a game that gives the players options and is deep enough to allow it to evolve. They can adjust and tweek the game based on what the players do, but Blizzard is only trying to add what they feel will open up new game play, not balance the game.
Ok, first off, what does this mean? That is barely english. Did I miss out on some internet lingo in the last 2 years?
CYA stands for "Cover your a**", as in don't get in trouble. Not really internet lingo.
I understand what CYA stands for. I was more referencing that the sentance reads like an incomplete idea or some sort of stream of thought non-sense. The "good political" sounds like the "political" is some sort of keish or pie.
EPT
Raiden
. Hopefully they get a bit more bold in their changes 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aPG9r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.team-dignitas.net/uploads/tinymce/images/hos3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.quotepictures.net/wp-content/uploads/The-whole-problem-with-the-world-is-that-fools-and-fanatics.jpg)
