User was warned for this post
Do We Want the Game Harder? - Page 16
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Spray
United States402 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
Iamyournoob
Germany595 Posts
You don't need to make the game harder in terms of accessability. Everyone can kick a ball, soccer is easy to learn, yet there are players like Lionel Messi who shine above all. I don't want the game to be harder, I want it to be better. SC2 has many gameplay and design issues which do not stem from unlimited unit selection, smart casting or automining or whatever. Units lack micro potential, clumping has its issues, no defender's advantage... The list goes on, there are tons of threads about these topics out there. These are the true issues. Hell, I'd even say the game is too fast. How do you want to micro when everything disappears in the blink of an eye? No, the games is mechanically difficult enough. But the game is so poorly designed that players, which could take the mechanical aspects of the game to a higher level, are limited by non-microable units and lack of incentives to split up armies and use apm for multitasking. And the reason why some players, who are mechanically inferior to others, can still beat big names is due to build order wins, easy-peasy all-ins, lack of scouting and units like the banshee, which is the greatest joke of all RTS units Blizzard has ever put in a game. | ||
![]()
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On January 24 2012 04:21 Rassy wrote: This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote edit/suplement: It would not kill sc as an esports,how difficult a game is (mechanically) has little to do with its popularity. If annything the relation is inverse , definatly after a cerain point. (example the huge popularity of lol wich is considered an easier game then dota and such, it had 120k vieuwers in kiev) The skill ceiling will still be near infinite, so easier is relative here, i just means that macro should take less time. The fun when watching streams is in watching the armys and engagements (at least for me) and not watching players macro. I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo .. | ||
![]()
komakino
United States12 Posts
With sc2 on the horizon, I decided to get involved at the ground level in order to see how the metagame and strategies developed in order to be a part of the community instead of on the outside trying to get in. A big part of sc2 success is from people like me who knew about brood war but felt that it was either too old or had too tough of a time understanding it. Inevitably, sc2 will get the same way as the community shrinks, expansions are released and the meta game develops. However, as long as the game continues to get exposure, there will continue to be new and inexperienced players for other new players to learn with. I really think that the ladder system (as opposed to the iccup system that required you to be relatively informed to get involved with) will always help bring in new players and make sure they find decent matches. On a separate point, i don't think there should be more micro or that macro should get easier. Starcraft is an economy based and macro focused game. The Warcraft series, particularly wc3, has always been blizzards micro based rts. There will be a wc4 and it will most likely be micro based and involve hero units just like wc3. Making sc2 more micro intensive would start to turn it into a reskinned wc3. I understand that wc4 is likely a ways off and that many players are not interested in going back to wc3 but I would encourage you to just hold off if you want a micro based game instead of arguing to redesign the existing game. | ||
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On January 24 2012 05:59 ArvickHero wrote: I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo .. you should play dawn of war 2 if you think sc2 macro cannot be made easier. | ||
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
On January 24 2012 05:59 ArvickHero wrote: I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo .. i remember when some people used to argue that queens should have auto larva inject lol | ||
Gosi
Sweden9072 Posts
On January 24 2012 05:59 ArvickHero wrote: I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo .. Eh don't mind him. He is just playing the wrong game. Sounds to me that he should play something like wc3 or some less competitive RTS like Red Alert or Supreme Commander where you focus on battle and units like he wants it. Also the "Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies" is a big deal when it comes to Starcraft. For Rassy and many many other players this is hard and they kinda fall apart with this kind of multitasking and that is one thing that sets bad players apart from good players that actually can manage their bases while roaming around on the map and dropping. Blizzard would be crazy to make this kind of thing easier. | ||
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
| ||
architecture
United States643 Posts
On January 24 2012 05:56 Iamyournoob wrote: The question raised in this thread adresses imo the wrong issue. You don't need to make the game harder in terms of accessability. Everyone can kick a ball, soccer is easy to learn, yet there are players like Lionel Messi who shine above all. I don't want the game to be harder, I want it to be better. SC2 has many gameplay and design issues which do not stem from unlimited unit selection, smart casting or automining or whatever. Units lack micro potential, clumping has its issues, no defender's advantage... The list goes on, there are tons of threads about these topics out there. These are the true issues. Hell, I'd even say the game is too fast. How do you want to micro when everything disappears in the blink of an eye? No, the games is mechanically difficult enough. But the game is so poorly designed that players, which could take the mechanical aspects of the game to a higher level, are limited by non-microable units and lack of incentives to split up armies and use apm for multitasking. And the reason why some players, who are mechanically inferior to others, can still beat big names is due to build order wins, easy-peasy all-ins, lack of scouting and units like the banshee, which is the greatest joke of all RTS units Blizzard has ever put in a game. Regarding cheese, how is the banshee that different from the DT? I'm not saying the banshee is a good unit, because it's not, it's a unit that fails to have functionality after a window of a few minutes. But, being able to cheese a better player has always existed. In BW, DT openings/sometimes with shuttle were the epitome of coinflip allins that could net you a win against a better player. But, DT's are a great unit that is useful throughout the game, at least partially because they come from the gateway. I think the problem with banshees is not cheese, but the same problem that this thread is discussing. Here we have a unit that is only useful in a small set of parameters and has no interesting combat properties, that fits into no overall dynamic. This is basically what Blizzard has done with so many aspects of this game: NOT being able to see the forest from the trees. | ||
storm44
1293 Posts
On January 24 2012 06:09 architecture wrote: Regarding cheese, how is the banshee that different from the DT? I'm not saying the banshee is a good unit, because it's not, it's a unit that fails to have functionality after a window of a few minutes. But, being able to cheese a better player has always existed. In BW, DT openings/sometimes with shuttle were the epitome of coinflip allins that could net you a win against a better player. But, DT's are a great unit that is useful throughout the game, at least partially because they come from the gateway. I think the problem with banshees is not cheese, but the same problem that this thread is discussing. Here we have a unit that is only useful in a small set of parameters and has no interesting combat properties, that fits into no overall dynamic. This is basically what Blizzard has done with so many aspects of this game: NOT being able to see the forest from the trees. nice try painuser | ||
architecture
United States643 Posts
| ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On January 24 2012 06:00 komakino wrote: On a separate point, i don't think there should be more micro or that macro should get easier. Starcraft is an economy based and macro focused game. The Warcraft series, particularly wc3, has always been blizzards micro based rts. There will be a wc4 and it will most likely be micro based and involve hero units just like wc3. Making sc2 more micro intensive would start to turn it into a reskinned wc3. I understand that wc4 is likely a ways off and that many players are not interested in going back to wc3 but I would encourage you to just hold off if you want a micro based game instead of arguing to redesign the existing game. I think a couple complaints got exaggerated as a reaction to Warcraft 3. One was that WC3 units died too slowly, therefore we need units that die extremely fast, as a result we got units that die ridiculously fast and engagements that are finished in a few seconds. The second that Starcraft BW was a macro game and Warcraft 3 was a micro game. In reality, Starcraft BW is both. That's what has always made it so impressive. You're creating these giant armies, but at the same time, you're poking around with a shuttle and a reaver, or setting off all these storms, or throwing down dark swarms and hopping lurkers forward with cracklings running through. Both are crucial to make it as exciting as it is. Take away macro and you get DoW or WC3 or in the most extreme form: LoL or HoN. Take away micro and you get SupCom2. And of those all, SupCom2 is the least viewer friendly. | ||
thezanursic
5478 Posts
On January 24 2012 02:18 Big J wrote: And Losira held Zenio's (???) 8pool two times with hatch first, while a lot of progamers die time and time again in the same situation. Thats good but thats not enough if it were then we would see more constant results from people and ZvZ is one of the most skill based MUs it's basically who can drone more and defend with the least banelings, but PvP is just horrible in that regard. | ||
architecture
United States643 Posts
Mid/late game fights are extremely fast paced, and fairly hard to keep up with from both a player and viewer perspective. There's just too much going on. | ||
EleanorRIgby
Canada3923 Posts
On January 24 2012 06:14 thezanursic wrote: Thats good but thats not enough if it were then we would see more constant results from people and ZvZ is one of the most skill based MUs it's basically who can drone more and defend with the least banelings, but PvP is just horrible in that regard. i think i have seen losira hold a 6pool drone all in with a hatch first, pretty crazy defence | ||
omgimonfire15
United States233 Posts
As for making the game harder, one should not just make the entire game harder per say, but create options that are hard to execute, pay back greatly, and are not necessary for the casual gamer. Like marine splitting, if you can do it, you get great return vs banelings. If you can't sucks, but it isn't the end of the world and its not like you can't play the game anymore. Someone mentioned before carrier micro. I wouldn't say "harder" is the right term to use, but more rewarding. As for making the entire game harder by putting in silly oldschool mechanics like broodwar AI movement and workers being unable to automine is silly. Make the game better by progressing, not regressing. | ||
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On January 24 2012 05:54 MooseyFate wrote: I see what you are saying about new players taking games off of the top players, but that should happen in this game as it is not nearly as "figured out" as BW. No one has seen every strategy yet. Each new GSL season, some player with a previously underused strategy/style does fairly well by exploiting weaknesses in the current metagame. Once the more experienced players play a couple games against them, their success slows down and eventually they stop winning games. Top Terran players like MMA and MVP are more likely to lose to a well executed P or Z build than to another T build because they don't know the ins and outs of the opponent's race as well as they know their own. Going after the #1 Terran player with the same forces/builds he already knows like the back of his hand is very difficult. Coming at him from a completely foreign (zing!) perspective makes it easier to get in cheap shots and throw them off their game. Every player should lose games, even the top players, and a lot of these are losses because of build orders/strategies as much as from mistakes and mis-clicks. The latter will happen less with MMA and MVP, but it still happens. On topic: I think the game has the right amount of difficulty as it stands. It reminds me of the Capcom fighting games, with sort of an inverted bell curve of ability. When you first pick up the game, you can quickly find simple strats that are relatively easy to execute (1a armies are comparable to button mashing in fighters. Sometimes you just get lucky.) As you start to learn more about the game and metagame, you slightly alter your build into something more complex, losing some of your concentration because it is now split on managing 3 bases and playing for the long haul, not just 1 base-all-in. I know when I did this in ladder, I started losing a lot more than when I was just 7 RR or 6 Pool. But, eventually being able to execute more and more complex strategies while holding off the easier to execute attacks from my opponent helped me to climb back up on the bell curve. At one end you have guys that 6 pooled into Masters. On the other you have guys like MMA/MVP. At some point, the 6-pooler will get lucky and pull off his more easily executed strategy against a much better player and take the better player by surprise. I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps all players 'honest' and makes for better tournaments because some unknown underdog can take at least a couple games off of the Best of the Best. Does this mean the game is "easy"? No. Just like in Chess, some guy with a limited knowledge can be doing things that make so little sense to the Chess Master, confusing them and possibly causing them to make silly mistakes. It's the human element of competitive games, and it's what makes it entertaining to watch for a lot of people. I'd agree with you if MMA and MVP were losing to brilliantly thought out strategies. But thats not the case. They lose to 6 gate pushes because it's absurd. They lose to Protoss deathball because at a certain point no amount of micro or multitasking can overcome that. The game is not horribly imbalanced but there exist a glaring imbalance between effort put in to win as Terran and effort put in to win as the other 2 races (especially protoss). Even Artosis has said that he switched to Protoss because it allowed him to maintain a high playing level while putting considerably less time into practicing and upkeeping his mechanics. | ||
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
| ||
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
As for micro and units I think a lot of improvements can be made. Too many units are just plain boring with very little potential for micro. Blizzard should really think about each unit and what potential the unit has both for beginners and pros when it comes to control, not how cool the lasers are... Abilities like concussive shield/fungal/force-field are just retarded too. We want people to micro, not prevent them from doing so. | ||
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
On January 24 2012 06:20 SupLilSon wrote: I'd agree with you if MMA and MVP were losing to brilliantly thought out strategies. But thats not the case. They lose to 6 gate pushes because it's absurd. They lose to Protoss deathball because at a certain point no amount of micro or multitasking can overcome that. The game is not horribly imbalanced but there exist a glaring imbalance between effort put in to win as Terran and effort put in to win as the other 2 races (especially protoss). Even Artosis has said that he switched to Protoss because it allowed him to maintain a high playing level while putting considerably less time into practicing and upkeeping his mechanics. Artosis said he thought protoss would let him do that, but he later realized it didn't (and it kind of shows at his current skill, doesn't it?). Don't quote-mine please. | ||
| ||