|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 13 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote:
No its not valid and not commonly overlooked yes it is. ok mister, "I don't like SC2 at all, but I know EVERYTHING about it", tell me why: yeah and I had good grades at school, and still I do have to study hard if I want to learn more in mathematics. define easier... less apm needed to control a single unit? agree! Less apm spendable? disagree you know when you use your whole hand to slap the keyboard, you can get WAY higher than that! you clearly haven't seen bots like the automaton 2000. Haven't seen a player do that yet Show nested quote +, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. yeah right... everyone always knew about the Bisu build, it just happened to be Bisu that was able to play it, and all the other protoss players all around the world suddenly increased in skill after he used it, so that they could play it too. Right after Bisu had done it. WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Show nested quote +Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out. I agree. There is only a handful of players who have the mechanics and the knowledge to play Mech in SC2 TvT. Show nested quote +Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. I'm pretty sure that we will have significant changes even in a short periode like 3months from now. Just look at what happened in the last 3months. And in the 3months before that. And before that. It's not like people only just got more APM and better mechanics, they learned about what is possible and how their interactions lead to possibilities. Show nested quote +People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? yes Show nested quote +How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. yeah micro mechanics in a big battle are less important. But you could do an extra drop instead while microing in the big battle! You could use the spare APM to split even better! To kite even better! To macro better! Show nested quote +People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all. Yeah, you obviously didn't think at all.
Thanks for this. I was getting ready to do the same thing by the time I reached the bottom of the page...
Like many have said, I think what Day[9] says in his Baseballs vs Frisbees video is, in my opinion, a wonderful way to put the frustration I think a lot of people who played BW have with SC2. The OP is saying many of the same things, but in a different way, which I appreciate. There is some perspective to be had between Day[9]'s video and this post that I think people should just consider for a while, preferably while watching one of those games where everyone went "OMG! This is the future!!!" (like Leenok's double spire game on Tal'darim). Ask yourself how much more effective those units are than what you could do with them by a significant enough margin that he's getting paid for it and you aren't. I'm not talking about the game as a whole, just about unit control/potential.
(Example: Leenock has great mutalisk use in the game I mentioned previously. He is brilliant about where they attack etc. Nothing about his control is especially powerful. It's the same hit-and-run most people do, maybe 1.5x better. This is not nearly as significant as the 8x-9x Day[9] is talking about in the design video. I realized that these numbers are arbitrary, but they're on a relative scale and meant to confer an idea, not be accurate, factual values.)
If you even consider feeling the need to comment on the fact that I'm comparing BW and SC2, please read this post:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote:
it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it. Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
|
Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
|
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote:
Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge.
|
On January 13 2012 04:37 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote:
Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge.
Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out.
|
Very nice read. The part about map control was very interessting. gj
|
On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 04:37 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote:
Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out.
Dude, your duding opining has nothing to do with the duding reality.
because the duding reality says that there were no duding banelings, no duding warp gates, no duding reactors and a couple of other duding things in BW. So none of your BW dudes could have known a dude about the metagame, that is still heavily under developement in any SC2 matchup.
btw this kind of disagrees with your OP in which you talk about how all the stuff is completly different in SC2 from BW, (which leads to nothing being figuered out).
and it would be pretty poor if all the 10years of BW gameplay development had only led to one thing: 4gate.
|
Comparing early years of bw to sc2 is moot as bw didnt have the comunity that sc2 started with
|
when bw community started to grow there was no past rts community with uber skills so everbody had to start at 0
its not the same with sc2
there are alot of people that played rts for serveral years and have the skills/speed etc
|
I think that Blizzard tried to sell more copies by making the game more noob-friendly while not pissing their entire BW-fanbase off. The result was that everyone was happy first, and while terran had to be fixed to not break the game (afaik, havent been around so mutch back then) people really had gread expectations. Until they began to actually figure the game out. It is a compromise that makes no one that happy and while the laddersystem geneates HUGE ladder anexity it is not the only cause because the game is not noob friendly at all.
"Did you not build workers constantly? Oh we're so sorry but you have to spend three hours a day to actually be good at this game."
And the pros are pissed off. More than anyone else. While the BW-legends don't even bother with SC2 the players who do complain. A lot.
The end of the line is that blizzard sold a maximum amount of copies that does make neither of its target groups as happy as it could have. And if it had been noob-friendly it might have actually made the people play that bought it. All of them.
|
Here I was thinking this would be an epic thread about game design but its just an enumerated list of the same old bw>sc2 crap.
|
On January 13 2012 04:57 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 13 2012 04:37 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote:
Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out. Dude, your duding opining has nothing to do with the duding reality. because the duding reality says that there were no duding banelings, no duding warp gates, no duding reactors and a couple of other duding things in BW. So none of your BW dudes could have known a dude about the metagame, that is still heavily under developement in any SC2 matchup. btw this kind of disagrees with your OP in which you talk about how all the stuff is completly different in SC2 from BW, (which leads to nothing being figuered out). and it would be pretty poor if all the 10years of BW gameplay development had only led to one thing: 4gate.
10 years of BW led to an understanding of RTS fundamentals and mechanics that wasn't present in any game. Strategy and metagame have absolutely nothing to do with that. Also, that kind of childish mockery only makes you look ridiculous. Avoid it if you want to be taken seriously.
|
On January 11 2012 04:36 bgx wrote:
Sadly most of your post is mainly true, it does not give definitive answers but Blizzard is not even looking for those, they are happy with current status quo, and most people are too.
Someone posted on reddit patch changes to carrier the supposedly "useless" unit that cant be fixed and done anything with. Yes there was no patches since beta, they gave us a unit they thought from the start is useless (not even trying to experiment on that). Was that for getting more customers ? I mean protoss without carrier would a blasphemy so lets introduce it and pretend its part of competetive game. Its 12 years to late to introduce scout, hell even that unit was patched and was a part of vanilla gameplay (no corsair). I feel sorry for protoss.
edit: meant carrier ofc
In a perfect world, Blizzard would like to slowly replace all BW units with new units for SC2 I think. Not that I think that is always the best idea, but it is what they want to do... they are in the business of making new games and love new stuff, etc. I like new cool stuff too, but some old units were just a little better. Then again, some new units are better/cooler... like the stalker vs the dragoon.
|
I'll be the first to admit I'm not qualified to speak on this subject - I never played BW multiplayer and I jumped on to Starcraft II because it had a bandwagon, but this post did make me think some interesting things.
The OP talked a lot about the need for players with better control to beat players with better macro - 'more microable units', unit selection limits, and to some extent area control capabilities all enable these - and I suppose that idea has some merit. One important thing that I think the OP is missing another important point and that is that the Starcraft community has hugely expanded because of the fact that controlling your forces is not outrageously hard in this game.
How can the game become more skillful without becoming so hard that the popular base of the game's players drops off? Is that even an important question? It is important to me, but maybe I'm alone. I think the OP's ideas about making static defenses stronger or more up-gradable and reinforcing the few area control weapons in SC2 are the best ones presented here when viewed in that light.
|
Overall, I think the OP has some good points. I disagree on some detail, and I also think some of it is thinly disguised balance complaints. But still, a good topic and interesting.
One thing I notice is no love for Protoss positional play. I wonder what it would take, other than FF, for Protoss to have few units that could control space? The Mothership was perhaps another one with vortex on a big army or recall, but that is going away. If recall stays on nexus, then the nexus will be closer to the planet' fortress perhaps.
Also, ... forgot something here. xxxxxx
Tanks... yeah watch the Day9. Tanks are probably fine.
I like more micro, but not sure about the entire "units that kill micro" argument. I feel some hate towards FF. Fungal is certainly more dangerous when infestors are massed than mass FF. There are many ways around FF, but not fungal. Hell, fungal stops all air... FF can't touch air. Not as big of a problem after the NP nerf, but still, potentially they are very deadly. Also, burrowed infestors are great at raiding outlying bases. They do force detection. Burrowed roaches definitely force detection in ZvP.
I would like to see less huge army vs huge army, clash, game over. That is not enough fun... it's over too soon, there is less room for interesting things to happen. So I agree with that. I would like to see more harassment that is interesting. There are improvements that can be made... still a damn good game though. But yeah, I hope Blizzard can squeeze even more interesting dynamics in the expansions.
|
My main gripe with FF is how much it screws with the AI.
However, to demonstrate a more strategic argument.
A terran wall + a tank, may take 100 zerglings to beat.
A banshee can kill 1000 zerglings, but not before they eat your base.
A forcefield can deny a 200/200 ground army running up a ramp for the duration of the field. Three (3?) sentries can block a ramp indefinitely.
The only way to overcome forcefields is to tech around them. That really isn't true of most other abilities/units. Normally you should tech around them but can also muscle through them (just send a bigger army).
As for the roach. That is an example of bad design in action.
I like the reaper. Oh crap, that means zerg has hydras/zerglings and banelings at T1 vs reapers. Reapers will auto-beat zerg. Oh crap. Umm... move roach to T1. Oh, now its totally wrong. It is too tough, regenerates too fast. Oh we can't have burrow at T1 anymore either. The regenerating raider becomes the short-range tank. Wait Zerg has a tank?? WTF? Zerg is meant to be squishy... Oh well. Oh crap, with range 3, zerg can't bust a wall... etc etc etc. This T2 hydra isn't really... working out.
The biggest problem I find with the colossus is that it collides like air. If it couldn't walk over your own units, it would require a lot more control. Escaping flank-snipes consists of walking onto your own units. It is really a little too mobile for a main-army AOE. Compare the alternatives. Tanks, Templar, Banelings, Ultras, Archons, Hellions. Tanks & Templar are not mobile, Banelings, Ultras & Archons have very short range and Hellions have limited targets.
|
On January 13 2012 05:40 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 04:57 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 13 2012 04:37 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote:
Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out. Dude, your duding opining has nothing to do with the duding reality. because the duding reality says that there were no duding banelings, no duding warp gates, no duding reactors and a couple of other duding things in BW. So none of your BW dudes could have known a dude about the metagame, that is still heavily under developement in any SC2 matchup. btw this kind of disagrees with your OP in which you talk about how all the stuff is completly different in SC2 from BW, (which leads to nothing being figuered out). and it would be pretty poor if all the 10years of BW gameplay development had only led to one thing: 4gate. 10 years of BW led to an understanding of RTS fundamentals and mechanics that wasn't present in any game. Strategy and metagame have absolutely nothing to do with that. Also, that kind of childish mockery only makes you look ridiculous. Avoid it if you want to be taken seriously.
well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific.
Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry.
And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around.
If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these?
Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch.
Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread:
from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games
from zero ressources to Idk... 10?
from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units
from action from the first minute games to turtle wars
honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent.
|
On January 11 2012 07:19 Millard wrote:
Making the post completely negative reduces a lot of legitimacy from the OP. I agree with some things you say (all have been said before), but I think its appropriate in threads like these to include the things SC2 does well, which are more numerous than the problems you've stated.
Agreed. Some missed opportunities. Also, to strengthen the arguments (some of which I think are true, others false) we need examples from actual games. Since release, we've seen a bevy of patches and games that could be used as evidence for or against this.
Sorry that I"m not actually posting counterarguments. When I get home, I"m going to reread this and find appropriate responses.
|
One more thing: If we're talking bad design, why oh why does the corrupter exist? I might post an analysis later about this unit because it really is one of the most pigeonholed, for specific use only kind of unit.
|
Great thread. While I don't agree 100% with everything you bring up, you at least back up your opinions very well. A well constructed thread.
|
Another sc2 vs bw thread - in disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
