|
On January 12 2012 02:53 blubbdavid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. 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. 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.
How so? Explain? Do protoss players just roll out with their colossi and units without detection vs burrowed roaches? Do terran not spend scans looking for burrowed banelings? Do forcefields not cause the other races to choose the positioning of their armies very carefully, not to engage somewhere where 2-3 forcefields could completely ruin them? Is it not ok that tanks are matchup specific? Are phoenixes not in many cases very micro heavy? At least they seem to be too hard to micro flawlessly for the pro´s, so I don´t know.
I´d love to see some sort of an intelligent answer from you.
|
[QUOTE]On January 11 2012 05:57 ChaosTerran wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 11 2012 05:42 Tor wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 11 2012 04:16 Scootaloo wrote:
For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but this is 100% wrong. You are arguing that the ghost doesn't require much micro? Name a single unit in SC2 that actually requires more micro than the ghost to be used effectively? Using mass snipes is quite possibly one of the most micro-intensive actions in the game and casting EMP requires micro too. I really don't see your point, especially not the claim that ghosts aren't micro intensive. Question, have you ever used mass ghosts before?
You also claim later that bio is not micro-intensive. Well, again. You are extremely wrong. Stutter-stepping is not hard to do, I give you that, but it's extremely time-consuming and very micro-intense. It's not always about the difficulty, but about the intensity and bio micro is quite intense, because it can take ages, especially against chargelots (which by the way only have to be a-moved, so if you want to complain about no-micro, why not complain about the unit that actually takes no micro, but complain about the units that have to be microed - doesnt really make sense)[/QUOTE]
For one using high templars require more skill, same goes for infestors, ravens and sentries, you need to storm in good locations or they will be microed out, or you'll even hit your own units in the worst case. And feedbacking a unit as tiny as the ghost that even has cloak is ridiculously hard with a terran having scans to kill obs and can just snipe overseers.
Casting emp's is a joke as it can't be dodged, and terran hardly has any mana using units that would make you have to watch out where you cast it.
Snipe is also super easy as all the unit's you have to hit are gigantic, ultras, broods and infestors.
Pretty much every spellcaster is harder to micro then ghosts, and ghosts, with snipe amd cloak are hy far the easiest to keep alive, and this is further helped by their high hp and terran pretty much alwayals having a medi armada at that point.
And about your difficulties with bio, I always found the assumption that bio is hard always rather insulting and I suspect its due to terrans superiority complex when theyre the only complete race.
In contrast to a zerg and toss army, where you have to have different control groups for every unit type because otherwise they lose optimal formation you can just 1a a bioball and do some minor stutter stepping, which, again, is not difficult.
I used to play toss and when I switched over to terran I noticed that a normal gateway army alone requires a lot more micro then bio, you actually have to think, forcefield, stalker engagement and micro, while the terran just 1as and kites with far faster units.
Bio is a joke as far as micro goes, it might be a bit intensive at times but by no means difficult as its just repeatong the same move over and over again. If you really think bio is hard, go play some mech or switch race, it will open your eyes.
As noted before, this does not include rine splitting.
Real terrans play mech, bio is just a browder solution so noobs can play it too.
|
On January 12 2012 02:53 blubbdavid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. 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. 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.
And then we have a post like your that actually doesn't add anything to the discussion.
|
great post, i wish I could contribute like this
|
On January 12 2012 03:02 n0btozz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 02:53 blubbdavid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. 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. 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. How so? Explain? Do protoss players just roll out with their colossi and units without detection vs burrowed roaches? Do terran not spend scans looking for burrowed banelings? Do forcefields not cause the other races to choose the positioning of their armies very carefully, not to engage somewhere where 2-3 forcefields could completely ruin them? Is it not ok that tanks are matchup specific? Are phoenixes not in many cases very micro heavy? At least they seem to be too hard to micro flawlessly for the pro´s, so I don´t know. I´d love to see some sort of an intelligent answer from you.
He can answer that by disregarding what you just wrote.
This thread is not about how forcefields are OP. It's about how the game could be more about the strategic control of the map through key points and key units that have very little offensive power but pack a punch in controlling a certain ground.
Strategy in real life, as in chess, is not about armies clashing. It's about logistics, supply routes, catching the enemy's vanguard off-guard. Napoleon was one of the first generals to divide his army into battle to gain mobility and successfully surround the opponent.
Because things become much more complex and interesting when the game is about small skirmishes, where various battles occur, where retreat is possible. But in the current state of things, it's just an army VS an army, deathball against deathball, as if both were giant magnets.
And yes, I did watch "MVP against MC" and yes, late-game is just one army dancing in front of the other, waiting for the spellcasters micro wars to end in favour of a player or the other. For now there is no middle-ground between decisive battles and harass.
On January 12 2012 03:09 Scootaloo wrote:
In contrast to a zerg and toss army, where you have to have different control groups for every unit type because otherwise they lose optimal formation you can just 1a a bioball and do some minor stutter stepping, which, again, is not difficult.
[...]
Bio is a joke as far as micro goes, it might be a bit intensive at times but by no means difficult as its just repeatong the same move over and over again. If you really think bio is hard, go play some mech or switch race, it will open your eyes.
[...]
Real terrans play mech, bio is just a browder solution so noobs can play it too.
This, for example, is balance whining, pure QQ. The OP is not. Learn the difference guys.
|
On January 12 2012 02:55 tdt wrote:
Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too?
see, it is posts like these that I can't take BW vs sc2 thread seriously.
I would like to clarify when I said popular I meant as an "esport" title. sc1 was fairly popular in every places where there is working computer cause it is one of the best playable game in the 90s, I played it for a good 2 or 3 years before going onto Diablo 2 back in the days. But it really didn't kick off anywhere esport wise except in Korea.
First, there are plenty of RTS games out there that rival BW in terms of strategy or micro, but just didn't have the backing and wasn't at the right place at the right time.
Secondly, BW did not "start" esport, at least for the western scene. Sure, it may be the first "Esport" title, but its debatable whether it actually did anything to competitive gaming in the Western side. I'd imagine Counter Strike laid down the footwork for that aspect.
And finally just a speculation, I don't think most sc2 fan have played or gave a rat ass for broodwar. Saying that sc2 success is riding on BW's tails is quite a claim, if not counter-intuitive given that most of sc2 support are westerners, and unlikely those supports are consists majority of previously small and diminishing bw community and not just new Esport enthusiastic.
|
Good article. I sense a little terran bias here, since you neglect to mention things like planetary fortresses, mass seige tanks and such. Even forcefields are a form of terrain control, since it keeps players on their toes in certain areas of the map. You also don't touch on the role maps play in game design. Also, it is incorrect that forcefields cannot be micro'd against, you can do medvac pick ups, roach burrow, blink and the like. Fungal growth cannot be microed against, and neither can concussive shell (at least in the phase of the game in which it is most powerful). But concussive is a form of space control like force fields. Later of course, there are tanks. The only race that lacks such control would seem to be zerg, which may not suit their playstyle.
Imo I do not enjoy 40 minute tank positional battles, these are as devoid of fluid counter attacking, harassment based styles as all the games you point out. * This is however extremely dependant on the map*. This is especially so for terrans, any TvZ on Shakura's is a good example. Bio play would seem to be a refreshing change from this.
I agree with you about the roach, and must point out that this applies to the marauder as well. Stalkers are more fragile and with blink, provide interesting avenues to play. Hydralisks imo are rarely seen because while they perform a role similar to marines, they cost much more and basically cannot be microed. The regeneration aspect in the beta would have been broken with the current version of the roach, it would have to be a lot more fragile for that to matter, and it would be similar to blink. The brute force of marauders and roaches acts as a space controller for a large portion of the game, a role also played by forcefields.
What you mention here applies best to mirror match ups. All mirror match ups in SC2 depend heavily on how either player meta games the other, with good games emerging only where players prefer to play a more 'standard' style.
PS: Pretty sure units like colossi, thors, brood lords and ultras are not meant to be micro'd so much as micro'd against.
|
On January 12 2012 03:24 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 02:55 tdt wrote:
Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too? see, it is posts like these that I can't take BW vs sc2 thread seriously. I would like to clarify when I said popular I meant as an "esport" title. sc1 was fairly popular in every places where there is working computer cause it is one of the best playable game in the 90s, I played it for a good 2 or 3 years before going onto Diablo 2 back in the days. But it really didn't kick off anywhere esport wise except in Korea. First, there are plenty of RTS games out there that rival BW in terms of strategy or micro, but just didn't have the backing and wasn't at the right place at the right time. Secondly, BW did not "start" esport, at least for the western scene. Sure, it may be the first "Esport" title, but its debatable whether it actually did anything to competitive gaming in the Western side. I'd imagine Counter Strike laid down the footwork for that aspect. And finally just a speculation, I don't think most sc2 fan have played or gave a rat ass for broodwar. Saying that sc2 success is riding on BW's tails is quite a claim, if not counter-intuitive given that most of sc2 support are from westerners and there is a dimming but quite loud bw community
This would be Quake 3 or doom even.
|
Two ways I can tell the original poster is a Terran player:
1. The section about tanks is underdeveloped and seems pretty opinionated.
2. The conclusion section states Starcraft 2 revolves around "making an army to kill off the opponent, with little emphasis on surviving". To me, this just screams Terran harass. The other two races are usually more oriented about gaining a superiority, whether it be economically with the Zerg or technologically with the Protoss. Terran is definitely that race with a "let's go kill stuff" philosophy. Bio armies are extremely mobile, Terran have the most harass options available, and Mules combined with SCV repair makes a Terran all-in the most effective.
After reading the thread, I also became overwhelmed with how much thought is invested into unit interaction. Some units like Colossus fulfill extremely important, yet subtle roles in some match ups.
For example in a PvT, imagine a Terran bio army that didn't have to invest supply or resources into Viking production. That would just mean more Marauders and Marines, which are already effective against Protoss in general. Simply the presence of Colossus forces Terran to act more strategically of when and how they engage, instead of simply stimming forward like a brainless juggernaut. You can see examples of this in early stages of a PvT, when a Terran wants to punish a Protoss expand before any Colossus are out.
|
iky you just took a royal shit on the BW foreigner scene.
I don't like you and to me it doesn't sound like you followed any of our clan leagues or ladders.
No offense. You come across as someone who just played on B.Net.
The timing was great for Korea. I'll give you that, but everything else. Nooooo. Just because there wasn't a whole lot of money being thrown around our scene doesn't mean we didn't exist. -.-
|
On January 12 2012 03:29 StarStruck wrote:
iky you just took a royal shit on the BW foreigner scene.
I don't like you and to me it doesn't sound like you followed any of our clan leagues or ladders.
No offense. You come across as someone who just played on B.Net.
The timing was great for Korea. I'll give you that, but everything else. Nooooo. Just because there wasn't a whole lot of money being thrown around our scene doesn't mean we didn't exist. -.-
I'm speaking harshly because I am quite sick of threads like these and some posters obvious hatred (yes hatred) to sc2, just like the guy I quoted.
Do we need another why bw is awesome and sc2 is crap thread, with chocolate covering instead of sprinkles this time?
While I do agree with OP on some points, I don't see why every "sc2 flaws" thread needs to make comparison with broodwar and bw only, and almost always neglecting interesting dynamics that comes with sc2 that should be encouraged, instead we just point out flaws and make reference to broodwar
|
I'm just as tired of it, but certain things will never go away. Eventually you have to accept it for what it is or ignore the outlandish comments entirely.
Let it be their problem, not your's.
|
This is not supposed to be a Broodwar vs SC2 post
This was in the first post, which also had its fair share of bias, but now you begin with comparing SC2 with C&C, really well done!
I shall allow myself to conveniently reduce my analysis to unit design, as you did, and i come to the conclusion, that, with nearly allpowerful units like the defiler, broodwar has much more in common with the superweapons of C&C than SC2, i even remember many BW fans cherishing those units for their "comeback" potential, this of course absolutely disregards the very good balance of starcraft games, but is none the less insulting, since C&C titles, especially under the care of EA have never been balanced at all.
Lets forget that uninteresting introduction, which is similar to the mentioning of other games, such as chess or pong, rather irrelevant, because it ultimately leads to *TRUMPETS* a SC2 vs BW rant, which it still is, even if you declare it is not.
so microreducing abilities it is:
1) forcefields:
true enough, these can be very powerful, however seeing a terran load his split force into medivacs and using the forcefieldsagainst the zealots, or using burrowed roaches or baneling drops as a zerg are powerful and viable abilities to prevent this, in short you fail to realize that this ability forces as much micro as it prevents, with the addition that the opponent prepares countermeasures INSTEAD of attackmoving unupgraded t1.
2) fungal growth:
this ability truly limits your ability to micro, tanks cannot unsiege, units not enter dropships, nothing can move, but in reality the existance of infestors on the field requires a lot of micro BEFORE the engagement, prozergs always reposition their roaches in order to get a good a widespread concave.
3) concussive shells:
this upgrade is powerful in the early stages of the game, but units with speedupgrades (especially zerg on creep) can disengage really well, also the terran bioforce is an army that is designed to kite and chase, as unmicroed it loses its straightup fights to the other races.
next are the units:
1) colossus:
i agree, this unit is rather boring, but at least it is not as random as the reaver (will the scarab actually hit its target???)
but its sheer strength requires a lot of attention concerning its position, vikings and corruptors are hunting for a good angle
so as boring as it may look, actually managing your army around the colossus.
2) roach:
as others pointed out, the roachblob really is microintensive when you maximize its potential
3) thor:
Blizzard itself is not happy with it, they did not want it to be massed, hence the patches, but ultimatetively it will get changed in hots.
4) Phoenix
nc...
5*) Ultralisks
no, you did not, but if i were to write a blog like yours, i would certainly look at this rather akward unit, that not really fits into the zerg army, behaves rather stupidly, and gets blocked more often than not, maybe a slight resemblance of glorious BW AI... the ultralisk is cool, but bad, actually often terribad causing won games to be lost.
The spacecontrolling units and defenders advantage:
SC2 rewards aggression, that is a design choice, not necessarily a flaw, i think its good that harass and drops are options until defensive measures have been taken (a couple of spines / spores per bases, cannons and a HT, missile and sensor turrets or PFs are enough against drops or harrass units, but larger forces overpower them as it should be)
TL;DR:
Many things you call bad or even atrocious are not mistakes, but choices of the designers, choices you would not have made maybe, but then again they are not yours to make, the post is well written, else i would not have taken my time to write this one, but you are not seeing the whole picture or you disregard it in order to make your point, SC2 is a different game, and with more rewarding aggression and parts of the defenders advantage gone, it may not resemble chess like BW used to, BUT it enables many other possibilities to outplay and outsmart your opponent as well, where broodwars defenders advantage would prevent.
so i would say sc2 offers neither a vaster amount of possibilities, nor that it is more limited, and i feel i get old and preachy repeating this so many times, but, it is a different game.
|
phoenix is a blatant example of dumbing down. spamming right click is not impressive micro.
|
Many SC2 maps have a certain control the center, control the game feel, which leads me to believe positional battles would be terribly long and predictable. A good exception is Tal'darim Altar, which is large enough to allow for different styles.
PS:
1. I don't know why terrans think mass snipe is hard to do, its ridiculously easy to do with enough ghosts, and even if you miss you hit something so spamming it has v few side effects.
2. There is a reason SC2 is a game. Real battles may be complicated, logistical affairs, but the greatest games are always simple. There have been plenty of complex RTS' which might have been fun for a while, but were terrible multiplayer affairs. A few basic concepts and an emphasis on execution are imo what define a good RTS.
|
This is an awesome article, what is all this talk about "broodwar bias?" That is an ad hominem argument and so has 0 logical value, and the only way that an argument including that could work is if you not only said that but also provided a logical rebuttal to one of his primary points (which has been done somewhat, see below). I did feel that the OP's previous article was dismantled by many strong counterarguments in the comments because it was just horribly flawed, but this was very well thought through and well put.
I agree that starcraft 2 is very lacking in space control (ie everything except some terran units like the pf/tank are at best a time-buying stopgap that can't actually stop/kill a semi-serious attack in the mid-late game). It seems to me that the current HotS stuff is adding some good units to help with this, but I personally think that the shredder should be remade as a protoss unit since they are the race with the least space control right now and the least being added in HotS (as of current build).
On the issue of the micro-eliminating things like FF/FG/CS & the "no-micro" units like the colossus/marauder, it seems to me that a lot of people are missing the op's point on them: While those things can create situations for micro (the dances to try to make/avoid those abilities) and can be microed (ie scoot n shoot & other stuff that you can do with almost every other unit of the same general type) they at best remove as much opportunity for micro as they create & they are thus very lackluster units when compared to other possible units that could not only be microed in non-unit specific ways but also have interesting unit-specific ways of making more of each unit (ie blink stalkers).
On the Roach as a No-micro unit
It seems to me that the people arguing against this would have a point (what with really cool stuff like roach burrow being used blink-esque etc.) except for this caveat (which is also part of why zerg space control with burrow is so lackluster)
On Burrow (and similar issues with other units like the colossus canceling its attack if you give it a new order partway through its attack)
Burrow/Unburrow has a 1 SEC CAST TIME EACH WAY! There is a reason why the ultralisk burrow charge will stun all nearby units at emergence, and that is because otherwise the whole thing would be useless due to the the ultras being killed while they unburrow and can't fire back. The same goes for why you don't see ppl burrowing fields of zerglings to get truly perfect surrounds (every single enemy unit is in range of 1+ of your melee's): because the zerglings are so fragile that they will mostly die in the 1 second unburrow time where they can't attack. The whole thing is that zergs are incentivized to not use burrow ambushes because they give the enemy a far greater 1st strike bonus than when they attack from the sides (entire zerg army unable to attack for 1 sec and able to be attacked by entire enemy army).
Roaches are beefy enough that they can survive the first strike damage, but they are still at a disadvantage in that case & in the case of trying to do blink-esque burrow micro the issue is that the roaches take long enough to
Now, this is completely ignoring the issue of mobile detection being very easy to get without going very far out of your way at all, which adds further to the "burrow not that useful" issue.
Now, disclaimer: I hate BW and its artificial difficulty through badly done-UI/AI and I think that the game is BALANCED AND QUITE WELL DESIGNED AND FUN, I just think that it is NOT AS WELL DESIGNED AND THUS NOT AS FUN AS IT COULD BE
|
I agree on most of your post, but I can't agree on Phoenixes.
+ Show Spoiler +Those of you in beta should remember when this unit was given its wonderful shoot-while-moving ability. 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. Move-shoot does not mean a unit that automatically shoots while you move it around. That removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot? It's just a bad mechanic.
1) They're unique in having that ability. Now, I realise that uniqueness does not automatically make a mechanic good, but it is a point in its favour.
2) One can focus fire with Phoenixes, so it's perfectly possible to choose what to shoot at. Additionally, their speed means that they can choose when to engage, and thus, when to shoot. The Phoenix does not remove any options or decisions, it simply adds new ones.
3) To use Phoenixes effectively, you need to use their maneuvrability. And their shoot-while-moving mechanic is what enables them to do so. That alone justifies its implementation.
|
Yes, Kukaracha, I'm qqing and youve been busy the entire thread saying there is no possible imbalance. While ypur terran, yknow the race that has to keep saying that to make themselves believe 111ing is not the same as any other ez cheese and their almost never dropping below50% winratio has to he that their better, not their race being the only one that is well designed.
|
That was an excellent read, thanks.
On January 12 2012 03:55 K9GM3 wrote:I agree on most of your post, but I can't agree on Phoenixes. Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +Those of you in beta should remember when this unit was given its wonderful shoot-while-moving ability. 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. Move-shoot does not mean a unit that automatically shoots while you move it around. That removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot? It's just a bad mechanic. 1) They're unique in having that ability. Now, I realise that uniqueness does not automatically make a mechanic good, but it is a point in its favour. 2) One can focus fire with Phoenixes, so it's perfectly possible to choose what to shoot at. Additionally, their speed means that they can choose when to engage, and thus, when to shoot. The Phoenix does not remove any options or decisions, it simply adds new ones. 3) To use Phoenixes effectively, you need to use their maneuvrability. And their shoot-while-moving mechanic is what enables them to do so. That alone justifies its implementation.
All protoss air can shoot while moving.
That aside, Phoenixes are fine imo
whats the difference between retreating with patrol or w.e and just retreating? not much. If you have the time to look at them, you're doing it anyway
|
On January 12 2012 03:24 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 02:55 tdt wrote:
Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too? see, it is posts like these that I can't take BW vs sc2 thread seriously. I would like to clarify when I said popular I meant as an "esport" title. sc1 was fairly popular in every places where there is working computer cause it is one of the best playable game in the 90s, I played it for a good 2 or 3 years before going onto Diablo 2 back in the days. But it really didn't kick off anywhere esport wise except in Korea. First, there are plenty of RTS games out there that rival BW in terms of strategy or micro, but just didn't have the backing and wasn't at the right place at the right time. Secondly, BW did not "start" esport, at least for the western scene. Sure, it may be the first "Esport" title, but its debatable whether it actually did anything to competitive gaming in the Western side. I'd imagine Counter Strike laid down the footwork for that aspect. And finally just a speculation, I don't think most sc2 fan have played or gave a rat ass for broodwar. Saying that sc2 success is riding on BW's tails is quite a claim, if not counter-intuitive given that most of sc2 support are westerners, and unlikely those supports are consists majority of previously small and diminishing bw community and not just new Esport enthusiastic.
Any game that sells several million copies in a week upon release does so on it's predecssors success and that includes SC2 is what I mean by riding on BW's success. Natually comparisons will be made to the predecessor just like Skyrim is compared to Oblivion and Morrowind so I don;t really see the issue with that,everyone does it with every sequal. I like some tihings about SC2 better but that does not mean they couldnt do things BW did better. It's not a slight but constructive critism what goes on in these threads whether you take it serious or not.
BW was/is still huge in the west years after release, perhaps not commercially with large sponsored tounaments like now or like in Korea but it was played like crazy. I think the lacking commercial aspect has more to do with graphics as other games long passed it by for causal veiwers rather than how popular it was to play relative to SC2. Both are/were immesly popular. Perhaps CS did start esports in the West but not near the level or fanacism or BW in Korea which seems to be moving west is why I said started it all - and certainly with this genra. It owes BW a lot for laying the groundwork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
