|
On January 27 2012 07:01 c0ldfusion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 04:41 infinity2k9 wrote:What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there. [B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a]
Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here. Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes. So you agree with me? Since "boring a-move" units = game design and not UI... I'd also add to my point earlier regarding the skill ceiling. Letting players select infinite number of units, thereby creating a ball formation (given the current pathing AI) is not always optimal. Pros have to manually split their army to minimize splash damage or to flank for example. This isn't just microing "slighly better". Army control on this level can deteremine the outcome of games.
Allowing infinite control is fine but then the unit micro was simplified mostly too. You realize you split your army in BW right, this is nothing new or amazing. It's fundamental tactics that you have to do. The funny thing about SC2 is because of the speed that the engagements take place you have infact way less actual actions/time devoted to the battle micro.. a fight in BW might last like 40 seconds of back and forth in some cases. Ignoring even the UI, unit design and everything else; you simply get more micro in that time than the average SC2 engagement because of the speed and dps.
|
Not sure about harder. Top pros in SC2 still need 300+ apm to win so it's pretty hard to do everything right which none do yet. What I'd like is double every units hit points so battles had more micro and wernt over in 5 seconds.
|
On January 27 2012 08:35 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 07:01 c0ldfusion wrote:On January 27 2012 04:41 infinity2k9 wrote:What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there. [B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a]
Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here. Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes. So you agree with me? Since "boring a-move" units = game design and not UI... I'd also add to my point earlier regarding the skill ceiling. Letting players select infinite number of units, thereby creating a ball formation (given the current pathing AI) is not always optimal. Pros have to manually split their army to minimize splash damage or to flank for example. This isn't just microing "slighly better". Army control on this level can deteremine the outcome of games. Allowing infinite control is fine but then the unit micro was simplified mostly too. You realize you split your army in BW right, this is nothing new or amazing. It's fundamental tactics that you have to do. The funny thing about SC2 is because of the speed that the engagements take place you have infact way less actual actions/time devoted to the battle micro.. a fight in BW might last like 40 seconds of back and forth in some cases. Ignoring even the UI, unit design and everything else; you simply get more micro in that time than the average SC2 engagement because of the speed and dps.
OK, because people keep bringing it up and mixing it up:
Micro was not simplified by unit design.
The AI and the pathing and the clumping, are the reasons why boring a-move units like hydralisks, dragoons, reavers and firebats have so much micropotential in BW, but sameconcept units like the hydralisk, the (burrowless) roach, the (blinkless) stalker and the colossus have not in SC2.
The units themselves generally offer more micropotential in SC2 due to the amount of abilities (from blink to explode and charge, YOU have the choice to use them).
Battles are shorter because due to clumping, autosurround and correct movement there are simply more units actually attacking in a big battle.
Just compare the dps/health of BW and SC2. The relation in BW was greater (reaver>colossus, dragoon>stalker... in dps, while bio without the marauder and zerg without the roach have less health etc...). --> therefore the battles in BW should be shorter, if it weren't for so few units actually being involved in a battle, due to line movement etc. (and also because due to the game being different in so many aspects and the game being more developed, the metagame is completly different--> more smaller engagements)
|
I dont understand why making the game harder would be bad for it as an esport. People play basketball, soccer, football, etc. all the time even if theyre not anywhere near as good as guys like Kobe, Rooney, or Brady.
|
I don't think SC2 is more successful than BW because of the simplicity, I strongly disagree. My personal opinion is that BW was just never successful in the west because of availability of streams, commentary etc., and later on because of outdated looks. Everyone who liked video games kind of knew the scene exists and is great, but very few people actually looked closer into it to decide whether or not they like it, because there was this huge barrier of getting information without investing a lot of time.
BW from my point of view really only got games with good commentating in like 2008 when Tasteless started with GomTV, and sadly it was only 3 (?) seasons long. I wasn't a huge part of the scene in any way and overall I'm more one of these SC2 kids. I think if you could bring the enthusiasm of SC2 today to the audience, let them watch some Tasteless commentated pro BW matches and tell them to not get distracted by the shitty looks for an hour or so, many of them would be hooked by the game.
I was more into the WC3 scene in like 2004-2008, and even there you could see how the interest decreased once the good information, tournaments and streams went down one after the other. As far as I see it (again, I was not a big part of the scene) Starcraft had very few of these events/tournaments outside of Korea in the first place. There was TSL, WCG, and after that? I don't really know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
