EPTDo We Want the Game Harder? - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lavi
Bangladesh793 Posts
| ||
|
mango_destroyer
Canada3914 Posts
On January 24 2012 07:41 JDub wrote: Okay, you can point out a couple individual upsets. I didn't see those games, so I can't comment on them. But what about the consistent domination of the foreigner scene by Koreans? What about the consistency of those at the top of Code S? You are right about the consistency and the dominance right now. I just hold my own opinion that I would like to see BW type dominance where some semi pro can`t even dream of beating a top player. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
Mechanics-wise I want them to make the game harder, but not by making the game clunky. I want multitasking well to be rewarded well. A diamond player can shift queue 2 dropships, but if he drops both on top of a couple of zealots without microing, it's not going to do squat. IMO make certain units stronger in small groups, and nerf/remove the ones that are good in big groups. I want more 10 stalkers + a templar poking a Terran army while the rest of the army positions elsewhere. I don't want 5 colossus 6 sentries and 40 stalkers walking around looking for the zerg army. Ridiculous cost efficiency units also need to be toned down. Colossus inside a deathball without storm are an example of this. If you had damage charts, they would be dealing 50+% of the damage, but without that, the protoss army wouldn't kill anything. Another would be marines. Finally, antimicro. Fungal & forcefield. Forcefield to an extent, can hurt as much as it helps, and the difference between good forcefields and bad ones is pretty apparent. However since both speed and accuracy are needed to do it properly, it's in a decent place, and opportunity cost is pretty high, because as everybody knows, sentries don't do damage, so having 10 supply worth of flashlights doesn't help you if you can't forcefield well. Fungal punishes people for clumping, but as a result of clumping, can KEEP punishing you for it. If a terran bio ball gets stormed, they can spread/dodge, and for the next one it's not going to do as much. Fungal hurts, and if properly timed, keeps hurting with no chance of recovery. This is the kind of antimicro I want removed. You should be punished one time for making a mistake, and be at a disadvantage. | ||
|
00Visor
4337 Posts
On January 24 2012 06:59 sereniity wrote: The reason that the Code S winners MVP, NesTea, MC etc don't win as much as the BW top does (Flash, Jaedong etc) is pretty simple. But they do. MVP, Nestea and Jaedong have a winrate of 68%. Only Flash is at 72%. Where has this perception come from that in BW the stars don't lose against lesser players? | ||
|
Weenkus
Croatia26 Posts
On January 24 2012 07:44 Lavi wrote: Doesn't have to be harder, i just want the game to promote and reward players with sick multitasking better Couldn't agree more I think harder doesn't necessary mean better. Rewarding players for their micro and macro capabilities is good enough for me hope they raise the bar just a little higher :D | ||
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
| ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On January 24 2012 07:45 mango_destroyer wrote: You are right about the consistency and the dominance right now. I just hold my own opinion that I would like to see BW type dominance where some semi pro can`t even dream of beating a top player. Fair enough. I personally never got into BW competitively, and really love the SC2 scene, so I don't fully understand the point of view of big BW fans. From my point of view, I'm a mid-masters player but I could not dream of taking a game off of a pro, or even a semi-pro. I ran into gowser once on ladder and got utterly, utterly dominated. I tried going back and playing BW again for fun, but found the UI so frustatingly hard to control that I couldn't bare to play it. There is something really frustrating about being incapable of even moving a big army around the way I want to, let alone continue to macro. Sure, this makes it so BW pro games are that much more impressive to those who have played BW, but it doesn't make for a more popular game. Basically, I think when the best players lose games to lesser players in SC2, it's almost always because the better player didn't play well. For example, when Mvp lost to adelscott in the Team Liquid tournament a while back, it just seemed like he was playing terribly (for w/e reason). He lost a reaper against probes, made poor decisions, got caught out of position, etc. I just think the best aren't that consistent yet (except for those we see consistently at the top of Code S). | ||
|
rift
1819 Posts
 | ||
|
mango_destroyer
Canada3914 Posts
On January 24 2012 07:52 JDub wrote: Basically, I think when the best players lose games to lesser players in SC2, it's almost always because the better player didn't play well. For example, when Mvp lost to adelscott in the Team Liquid tournament a while back, it just seemed like he was playing terribly (for w/e reason). He lost a reaper against probes, made poor decisions, got caught out of position, etc. I just think the best aren't that consistent yet (except for those we see consistently at the top of Code S). that`s a very good point i think i can agree with you on this now. on a side note, based on what we seen (little) of Heart of the swarm it looks like the new units will add more variety and dynamics and some more micro which is good. | ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
zeden
18 Posts
-remove smart-casting. -equal and harsher punishment for missing mules/larvae inject/crono. -bigger reward for great micro/control. I believe these changes move the game in a direction where good players overcome bad players, slowly moving away from the "build order casino" mentioned before. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On January 24 2012 07:52 JDub wrote: Fair enough. I personally never got into BW competitively, and really love the SC2 scene, so I don't fully understand the point of view of big BW fans. From my point of view, I'm a mid-masters player but I could not dream of taking a game off of a pro, or even a semi-pro. I ran into gowser once on ladder and got utterly, utterly dominated. I tried going back and playing BW again for fun, but found the UI so frustatingly hard to control that I couldn't bare to play it. There is something really frustrating about being incapable of even moving a big army around the way I want to, let alone continue to macro. Sure, this makes it so BW pro games are that much more impressive to those who have played BW, but it doesn't make for a more popular game. Basically, I think when the best players lose games to lesser players in SC2, it's almost always because the better player didn't play well. For example, when Mvp lost to adelscott in the Team Liquid tournament a while back, it just seemed like he was playing terribly (for w/e reason). He lost a reaper against probes, made poor decisions, got caught out of position, etc. I just think the best aren't that consistent yet (except for those we see consistently at the top of Code S). It's not like upsets never happened in Brood War either. | ||
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
On January 24 2012 07:40 mango_destroyer wrote: And yet one has won a championship and one made it to the finals. They probably should dominate those guys who aren`t anywhere near that level. Not if they don't play good enough. If you actually look at those series and say "hey, polt played super fucking good but lost to some bullshit" then sure, afaik though he actually lost in macro games. If he got cheesed then he should have scouted accordingly. All of these examples are so bullshit, just because you're a better player you still have to actually PLAY better too. Your name wont win you the game, your play will. | ||
|
Warillions
United States215 Posts
On January 24 2012 04:55 fraktoasters wrote: Wow rage more because I disagree with you slightly? Edit: If it's not clear what I said let me rephrase it. You guys seem to think good macro makes you better than 99% of the players, and I'm saying that's only true in the NA server. On harder servers, you have to have a lot more than just good macro, which is actually a good thing about the game. Just because NA players are terrible doesn't mean the game's hard. you cant judge how hard a game is from the skill of teh opponent. some easy games can have hard opponents. just because koreans are btr than any other race of ppl doesnt mean the game is easy. all the discussion is about is if the game is easy or hard to the point of needing adjusting. question: is macro so easy its taking away from the game?answer: maybe at the top lvl of play depending on what your watching it for. if u wanna see strat vs strat then no. it doesnt. if u like to see players pushed physically to there limits and beyond so we can spectate the most amazing matches ever then yes. if 95% of the player base cant even build there structures and units efficiently to even make strategy a determining factor of the game result. but to you directly. the game physically limits such a high percentage of players. which currently is ALL players. i cant see how u can say this game is easy without trolling. yes its harder than BW. but its not an easy game. not even close. i believe in your eyes, if the game doesnt say Brood War. its gonna be an easy game. | ||
|
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:04 Grumbels wrote: It's really hard to implement smart-cast in this game. You'd need to change spells like forcefields (that need to be mass-cast to be effective) a lot. It's one thing to select 5 high templars one by one and cast storm (Brood War), or have 6-7 sentries that all need to cast split second forcefields to get the timing right. I agree it would change balance quite a lot, especially protoss with forcefields. I don't think sc2 should be "changed" to make it artificially hard, or more like brood war. Just let both games be themselves, and those who are interested in each game will watch/play. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 23 2012 23:51 Daimai wrote: I don't believe this game has a low skillcap, just that everybody is far from reaching it. I still see progamers, even in korea, do stupid fundamental mistakes they shouldn't do, engaging with chargelots behind stalkers etc. The main concern with sc2 is that good players lose to randoms, I just say the metagame hasn't stabilized and there is no build (yet) which is decent/good against everything which causes coinflip losses. It's a metagame issue. Yeah, because putting EVERY probe you make on minerals and clicking on every building you have to make one unit is SO much more fun. Automine and MBS is fun because it removes focus from stupid artificial over-the-top mechanical barriers to become decent and enjoy the game but to become good, there are still many strategial and tactical things you have to learn. Also mechanically, this game still isn't easy. Come back when you don't do any macro mistakes and I'll admit youre right. BW being hard doesn't suddenly make SC2 easy. Learn to logic bro. If being good at BW makes you good at SC2, then we can say that BW is at least as hard as, or harder than SC2. Since this condition is true, the statement is true. If being good at SC2 does not make you good at BW, then SC2 is not equally hard as BW. My challenge is these SC2 'top players' go play BW and see how terrible they do. If they can handle it, SC2 is as hard as BW. If they can't, SC2 is easier. It's quite simple really. Very few SC2 players can jump into BW and start winning off the bat. Most BW players start off at low masters just by being BW players. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
It wouldn't necessarily make the game harder, but there is nothing wrong with having more variety | ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
What I think we want is an increase in complexity, and a reduction in the influence of randomness over games. Greater "difficulty" may be a biproduct of this of course still, though. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:18 Befree wrote: I don't think "difficulty" should be the focus. I think that could lead us down a bad path. What I think we want is an increase in complexity, and a reduction in the influence of randomness over games. Greater "difficulty" may be a biproduct of this of course still, though. A helpful link: http://www.examiner.com/game-design-in-richmond/complexity-vs-depth One of the biggest confusions in game design is the difference between complexity and depth. If a game has depth, it allows for many different playstyles, strategies, and possibilities. A game with depth will always have something else to discover. Complexity, on the other hand, merely throws extra layers between the player and progress, and it doesn’t add anything. As an example, chess is not particularly complex, but it has incredible depth. Anyone can pick up the basics of chess in an hour, but experts can practice for lifetimes and still find new strategies and avenues to explore. A lot of people in game design use those concepts that way, so I think it's a good idea to use it on TL as well. | ||
| ||
