| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought Wow, I've never considered this. Thank you for opening my eyes. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
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 Does Country like China ? sounds anything familiar to you ? If what you claim is true than china wouldn't have their own bw scene , which is quite huge if you actually look in to it . Maybe you haven't been around during bw golden age when even foreigners were quite popular in broodwar , foreigners winning against Korean in WcG . You are saying that broodwar only made huge impact in korea and it didn't reach globally which is entirely wrong . Besides that what's wrong with OP comparing it to the closest source that starcraft 2 was born from ? How is he showing bias by looking at precedent ? How is he unwilling to accept advantages of other rts games ? When sc2 still requires you to micro your unit ? Can you micro your units in Supreme Commander 2 as well as Sc2 ? . Do you have heroes in Sc2 like Wc3 ? . In my opinion OP did a good job looking at things as it is . Telling the thing as it is , he could have actually rub the open wound with more salt and compared the microable units using bw as comparison and he held back on using that as an example . Except on the topic of map control , he did used savior's lurker hold amazing play . | ||
|
ChriS-X
Malaysia1374 Posts
| ||
|
Gonzo103
Germany220 Posts
beside the sc2 vs. sc:bw stuff i think everyone will agree when i say that the most interresting component of every RTS game is the Battle. I want to have epic Battles back and forward over a long period of time. If everythink i have, or see as a spectator, is dissapearing instantly, after 20 minutes of macroing is just boring. This maybe is not 100% accurate for every MU. But at least its true for the most PvT´s. Blizzard put a lot of efford to make SC2 fast pace, but at the end i think it din´t work out so well. But i also think there is a lot of potenzial and SC2 will evolve. Players improve and expansions are still not out! | ||
|
Froob
United Kingdom342 Posts
On January 11 2012 07:06 Tehweenus wrote: Secondly, the Colossus is obviously a very blunt unit, and most especially so against Zerg. Regardless, the unit is so important that it will take up a hotkey spot of its own hahaha | ||
|
Mr. Black
United States470 Posts
1. Saying that roaches do not require micro is ridiculous -- splitting, hugging and stutter step are key for unburrowed roaches. Burrow micro with tunneling claws (which improves regeneration significantly) can turn the tide of a game. 2. The micro reducing abilities only reduce the micro of the units that get trapped by them -- there is a lot of micro involved in respecting and countering these abilities. EMP/Snipe or Feedback or even just flanking to focus down infestors and sentries -- all take tons of micro. Also, fungal's root duration and damage have been scaled back to where it is nowhere near as problematic as it used to be. 3. Phoenix don't take micro?!?!?!?! -- phoenix v. muta is very micro intensive and spreading v. infestors is key 4. Siege tanks can't control position? Siege tanks can lock the map in tvt and tvz. 5. "Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed." -- All three WILL kill you if you don't have detection. I would say burrow's ineffectivness is more due to the ease of detection -- Nobody plays without detection. 6. The creep mechanic is a great way to hold ground -- creep was only a inconvenience zerg had to deal with in SC:BW. 7. Spines/spores force siege to handle efficiently -- without colossus, a few spines shut down protoss, same for terran without tank. | ||
|
Lavi
Bangladesh793 Posts
In particular I think protoss could use some help... I really dislike colossus design for reasons stated in article, and HOTS tempest design really builds on that since it's another massive aoe unit (Since it is large and slow probably best used in defense or as part of your deathball) Anyways interesting play is, IMO, of greater importance to racial balance (which can be addressed). But if you have a balanced game which is stale then you would be stuck, until the next expansion at least. So while blizzard team says they focus on "cool units"... they are being short-sighted and should expand that to be "cool units that promote interesting matchups and gameplay" | ||
|
OopsOopsBaby
Singapore3425 Posts
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought so ignorant. | ||
|
Rybaia
Italy213 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:04 Mr. Black wrote: A few points: 1. Saying that roaches do not require micro is ridiculous -- splitting, hugging and stutter step are key for unburrowed roaches. Burrow micro with tunneling claws (which improves regeneration significantly) can turn the tide of a game. During huge battles roaches work better amoved then with burrow micro. In small battles in certain occasions yes you may be right, if there is no detection on the battlefield but most of the time roaches are one of the best examples to a microless unit. Most of the time they work better when they are extremely close to the opponent's army then with kiting. | ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On January 11 2012 06:55 ChaosTerran wrote: The collossus is basically a mobile siege tank? Space controlling unit and "splash damage" aren't the same thing. In SC1, you could create areas where space controlling units like the old siege tank and the lurker could hold that area incredibly cost effectively. They could be broken, but the amount of resources needed to break it far outweighed what was gained by doing so. It looks like (though who can say for sure?) Blizzard is trying to make shredders and swarm hosts into this type of unit in SC2. Protoss has no units revealed which do anything like this. You can try to use Colossi to hold an area from smaller forces, but generally they're going to die very quickly for their cost without something else in front of it. They're also very expensive in resources, tech time, and food. Don't get me wrong, they're great in a fight - but for defending an area, 3-5 photons cannons will kill things faster, be similar in resource expenditure (incl tech costs) and harder to break. Not that siege tanks are always cost-effective in being space controlling units (though it's the best we've got in SC2) - but can you say the same of siege tanks and bunkers? Edit: A shredder is actually the perfect example of this. Assuming it pulses at a moderate rate and has a non-silly range, how many zerglings/banelings does it take to kill a shredder? (Hint: It's a trick question.) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
However, there's much comparison to Brood War. SC:BW is arguably the pinnacle of RTS, but WOL is a different game in an, admittedly, different age. I play toss, so all my examples are... toss. The appearance of massive "unmicroable" units is a newish phenomenon. However, by virtue of their cost in time, production, tech, it's generally impossible to use them alone (okay, I know we have War of the Worlds PVP, but I swear the gateway units are just hiding underneath). You need to complement them with other units, e.g. colossi with gateway units. The latter need to be micro'd: sentries need to be FF'd, zealots need to be in the front, stalkers should be focusing down AA and blinking, HT should be STOOOORM. Zone control. I think you may be referring more to map control. Zone control to me feels like forcing opponent's units around in an engagement (smaller scale than map control). That happens plenty. HT (and to an extent other AoE units), Sentry forces your opponent to stay away until they can find an angle to engage from. Even chargelots can act as a form of zone control by establishing the line of battle. Map control. Early game, highly mobile units like hellions and speedlings hold map control. Late game, well, there's a reason that the map ends up in split map situations. A player has "map control", by virtue of defender's advantage-- their army has static D which can tilt the balance, and also the benefit of faster reinforcement. Then you sacrifice some of your control to try and make your opponent lose some of his-- a drop by terran loses army but damages infra or eco. A switch to BL sacrifices mobility (and thus, defense and reaction) for pushing power. Blizzard may have had different roles in mind when they created the units. Players found a better, more practical, niche for them. WOL is a different game from its predecessor, no matter how good it was. Actually, who even knows what Blizzard had in mind for the units in BW? | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
You forgot Voids as far as microless. There used to be a nice micro interaction getting and keeping that humongous charge damage, now not so much. Just 1a and move back upon taking damage. Hated that change. Phoenix require 10x more micro than VR considering they have grav and can kite other air. Carriers micro does not work as advertized with the 14 range deal so I'd add that unit as well. Blizz seems they are about to address space control with expansion units though so I have some hope. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
the only BW matchup dominated like that to some extent is PvP, but even then there are many micro tricks you can use with dark archons, shuttle reavers and the ever difficult storm carpeting. honestly the only sc2 matchup that has some semblance of...strategy...is TvT. would be better if mech did not suck so hard. the rest of the matchups seem to be about one player overruning the other's position with more units. not with funky moves like boxer's bio doom drop on tanks but just by having a more powerful army. it's very strange to watch. | ||
|
n0btozz
Iceland115 Posts
Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better. Let´s go over this: Force fields: + Show Spoiler + There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess. Phoenix: + Show Spoiler + We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this. Tanks: + Show Spoiler + Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific. Burrow for zerg: + Show Spoiler + This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed. Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches. I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
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. | ||
|
Seiferz
United States640 Posts
He's not saying "phoenix requires no micro", he's saying that having move-attack in the game is just stupid. Day9 did a little bit about this topic in one of his musings that agrees with the OP: http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-s-musings-game-design-baseballs-vs-frisbees-5837982 | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
Idiocy runs deep. As Seiferz said, you plain and simply missed the point. | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:35 n0btozz wrote: Your starcraft 1 bias is totally ruining your article. You write well, but tha´s about it i´m afraid :/ Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better. Let´s go over this: Force fields: + Show Spoiler + There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess. Phoenix: + Show Spoiler + We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this. Tanks: + Show Spoiler + Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific. Burrow for zerg: + Show Spoiler + This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed. Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches. I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes. + Show Spoiler + On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote: 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. Wow, the difference between these posts couldn't be bigger, to think that they are next to eachother... One overflowing with ignorance, the other wise words from an expert. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 12 2012 02:42 Seiferz wrote: Most people reading this and refuting his little micro points have a super flawed idea of what the OP is trying to say. I don't care if its "brood war bias" or not, but these are fundamental things that don't necessarily break the game, just give it a really flawed design if you're trying to go forward. He's not saying "phoenix requires no micro", he's saying that having move-attack in the game is just stupid. Day9 did a little bit about this topic in one of his musings that agrees with the OP: http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-s-musings-game-design-baseballs-vs-frisbees-5837982 I linked that video in the first part cause it's just so damn good. Sean is truly gifted as a teacher and speaker. I wish I could explain things as well as he can. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
