On June 19 2012 09:09 HumpingHydra wrote: From my perspective, the Carrier doesn't work in SC2 because of how tight units can fit. IE marines/hydras/stalkers now clump tighter than their sc1 predecessors that Interceptors are killed too fast. But, people do not want to see their carrier changed too much, because of how iconic it is.
The problem with the carrier is that it is too easily hard countered by many basic units. Vikings, stalkers, and corrupters are able to do +## for no reason whatsoever other than the game says so. This goes for many units in the game, the problem can be solved by removing the bonus damages and changing dps for these units.
I'd also like to see Blizzard to stop constantly patching the game forcing the metagame to shift. Some patches have been well received like mothership speed accel or immortal range buff; but others have been severally disappointingly like the neural parasite or ghost snipe nerfs. I find it disconcerting that Blizzard is so willing to ruin strategies both present and future for the sake of appeasing whiners.
I've never played BW but after hearing about high ground advantage, wtf happened to that? Something dynamic taking away most likely by neglect.
"If you want BW units then go play BW" is the stupidest, most braindead shit argument I've ever heard.
Guess what other units were in BW? Marines, Ghosts, Battlecruisers, Siege Tanks, Zerglings, Hydralisks, Mutalisks, Ultralisks, Zealots, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archons, etc. etc.
Should all of those be taken out because "If you want to play BW then go play BW!"? Of course not, that's a fucking retarded argument and you know it.
The truth is that there is always a portion of a gaming community around ANY game who will endlessly and relentlessly suck up to the company that made the game, regardless of the validity of the complaints. Daddy issues, I imagine.
It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
To elaborate on your point, this is exactly why I get annoyed with so much patching. I really feel like I just want to see how the metagame plays out over time without patching.
But I'd also like to disagree with you to some extent. There is definitely a much higher skill ceiling in SC2 than in just about any other RTS ever made with the possible exception of BW. I'd say that's pretty good praise, wouldn't you? That said the current racial interactions, as you put it, are they way they are largely because of lackluster units. A more dynamic game comes from a player having various options available to him/her that all have different pros and cons but are all viable to some degree. People hate the colossus because it manages to stifle so many options all by itself. If you're a terran and you see your opponent get 3+ collossi, what are your options? Are there any meaningful options aside from vikings? Well, not really no, nothing that will perform well reliably anyway.
TvZ, historically, has probably been the most dynamic matchup in that both players have a number of different builds/playstyles/unit choices that can work, but even TvZ has been a little bit on the stale side lately.
Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved.
On June 19 2012 03:55 0neder wrote: Secondly, THIS thread points out EXACTLY how pathing could be improved for excitement, legibility, and in a way that would allow more IMBA splash without breaking the game. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889 We are at a crossroads now. It is time to bring this to DB's attention. Not a hard fix.
Not a hard fix? You're talking about fundamentally changing how units move. This is the most basic aspect of play: the way units path from location to location. Making that change would require substantial alterations of just about every aspect of SC2.
Was already implemented
Go to 1:06. See how more majestic the Zerg army seem to be from what we have so far. They are so far apart. The reason why Blizz downplayed that part still remain an enigma to me.
Have you considered that they didn't just go in-game and a-move an army for the trailer?
It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
That's where I would disagree with you. I've got a bunch of screen shots from last weekend's Dreamhack that very much illustrate my complaints on unit clumping There's been some improvement sure, but it's not so significant as all that.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
Bulls eye man! I ll go watch some more Dreamhack / MLG VODs - replays with amazing games while these kind of threads decay over time (1 year ago we had 5 threads like this per week).
Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved.
I agree with you on this one, there is nothing wrong in trying to make the game better and come up with suggestions etc. However it does matter how you are really trying, for example look at this threads title. Do you honestly think that considering this forum's history on the subject this is an appropriate way to start such an effort?
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
I followed GSL/MLG/Dreamhack since the beginning. For me unit clumping is one of the worse things currently in SC2. It makes larger army pwns smaller army much more heavily, which makes come back more difficult and exacerbates balance issues. Battles end more quickly. It makes army seem way smaller. It discourage skirmishes and constant trading and instead encourages mere poking and turtling to a max army. It makes battles much more cluttered and hard to make out which is the main reason people say BW looks than SC2. There are other issues but this is prolly the most important one, along with worker mining AI.
I don't think people who says SC2 is fine actually watched any good BW game. What got me into starcraft in the first place was the 2008 OSL final between July and Best. As much as I like SC2 I don't think I've ever seen a game that brings anywhere close to the excitement I felt in the last game of that series. BW simply feels much more unpredictable and dynamic, where there just seems to be a much wider possibility of what you can do to win the game. You probably heard of the game between Flash and Zero where Flash massed Turret and Siege Tank, never attacked and win. Or the game between Great and Bisu where Great built Hatcheries in the middle of the map and sunken contained Bisu on 3 bases. Or the game between FBH and Savior where FBH loses his entire main, yet comeback with BC/Medics. Game 5 between MVP and Squirtle was cool, but it was nowhere near the kind of craziness that BW spews out from time to time. Ever notice how many PvZ seems to end in a 2-base all-in? Sure there are hydra-busts in BW but at least those don't end in just 15 seconds of a battle.
If you watch those games, notice how the ultralings were always all spread out when attacking, compare to SC2 where it's hard to tell what is being fungaled and what is being hit by baneling and everything just bash against each other. The Zergs were never maxed in those games, yet their army always seems much larger than what you would see in a maxed out SC2 Zerg. Pointing out how SC2 isn't completely horrible doesn't mean anything. BW set the standard and SC2 being the sequel should certainly be compared to it. No one is saying that SC2 is totally inferior to BW. You'd also be wrong if you think SC2 is already better than BW in every way possible.
Btw, some people are saying that dynamic unit movement would make the game too easy, obviously you'd also buff splash damage back to the level of BW so you'd still get splitting.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
I followed GSL/MLG/Dreamhack since the beginning. For me unit clumping is one of the worse things currently in SC2. It makes larger army pwns smaller army much more heavily, which makes come back more difficult and exacerbates balance issues. Battles end more quickly. It makes army seem way smaller. It discourage skirmishes and constant trading and instead encourages mere poking and turtling to a max army. It makes battles much more cluttered and hard to make out which is the main reason people say BW looks than SC2. There are other issues but this is prolly the most important one, along with worker mining AI.
I don't think people who says SC2 is fine actually watched any good BW game. What got me into starcraft in the first place was the 2008 OSL final between July and Best. As much as I like SC2 I don't think I've ever seen a game that brings anywhere close to the excitement I felt in the last game of that series. BW simply feels much more unpredictable and dynamic, where there just seems to be a much wider possibility of what you can do to win the game. You probably heard of the game between Flash and Zero where Flash massed Turret and Siege Tank, never attacked and win. Or the game between Great and Bisu where Great built Hatcheries in the middle of the map and sunken contained Bisu on 3 bases. Or the game between FBH and Savior where FBH loses his entire main, yet comeback with BC/Medics. Game 5 between MVP and Squirtle was cool, but it was nowhere near the kind of craziness that BW spews out from time to time. Ever notice how many PvZ seems to end in a 2-base all-in? Sure there are hydra-busts in BW but at least those don't end in just 15 seconds of a battle.
If you watch those games, notice how the ultralings were always all spread out when attacking, compare to SC2 where it's hard to tell what is being fungaled and what is being hit by baneling and everything just bash against each other. The Zergs were never maxed in those games, yet their army always seems much larger than what you would see in a maxed out SC2 Zerg. Pointing out how SC2 isn't completely horrible doesn't mean anything. BW set the standard and SC2 being the sequel should certainly be compared to it. No one is saying that SC2 is totally inferior to BW. You'd also be wrong if you think SC2 is already better than BW in every way possible.
Btw, some people are saying that dynamic unit movement would make the game too easy, obviously you'd also buff splash damage back to the level of BW so you'd still get splitting.
Just a note: Armies seem larger and more spread out in BW because the view is far more zoomed in. You see only about a 25-50% of what you see on a single screen in SC2.
Also, I don't have any problems following battles in SC2, i can see what is being hit by banelings, what gets fungaled, etc., so i can't see your problem. It seems to be a matter of subjective perception (as is the whole SC2 vs BW debate).
The only thing thats keeping the game fresh for many people are those many patches and expansions. For a person who just spectates and doesnt play the game, and there is a lot of people like that, I cant imagine this sort of gameplay keeping their specating interest for long. Imagine this was the last patch for the game, there were no expansions and BNet stayed in its current form. Im sure the game would die out fast as an esport.
Major faults for that I would say are BNet 2.0 and unit clumping. Sure clumping may provoke a lot of micro, but a lot of that micro is done pre battle and in-battle micro is not that spectator friendly or exciting and not as obvious as marine micro. It also limits a lot the kind of units and abilities they are allowed to design without breaking the game.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
I followed GSL/MLG/Dreamhack since the beginning. For me unit clumping is one of the worse things currently in SC2. It makes larger army pwns smaller army much more heavily, which makes come back more difficult and exacerbates balance issues. Battles end more quickly. It makes army seem way smaller. It discourage skirmishes and constant trading and instead encourages mere poking and turtling to a max army. It makes battles much more cluttered and hard to make out which is the main reason people say BW looks than SC2. There are other issues but this is prolly the most important one, along with worker mining AI.
I don't think people who says SC2 is fine actually watched any good BW game. What got me into starcraft in the first place was the 2008 OSL final between July and Best. As much as I like SC2 I don't think I've ever seen a game that brings anywhere close to the excitement I felt in the last game of that series. BW simply feels much more unpredictable and dynamic, where there just seems to be a much wider possibility of what you can do to win the game. You probably heard of the game between Flash and Zero where Flash massed Turret and Siege Tank, never attacked and win. Or the game between Great and Bisu where Great built Hatcheries in the middle of the map and sunken contained Bisu on 3 bases. Or the game between FBH and Savior where FBH loses his entire main, yet comeback with BC/Medics. Game 5 between MVP and Squirtle was cool, but it was nowhere near the kind of craziness that BW spews out from time to time. Ever notice how many PvZ seems to end in a 2-base all-in? Sure there are hydra-busts in BW but at least those don't end in just 15 seconds of a battle.
If you watch those games, notice how the ultralings were always all spread out when attacking, compare to SC2 where it's hard to tell what is being fungaled and what is being hit by baneling and everything just bash against each other. The Zergs were never maxed in those games, yet their army always seems much larger than what you would see in a maxed out SC2 Zerg. Pointing out how SC2 isn't completely horrible doesn't mean anything. BW set the standard and SC2 being the sequel should certainly be compared to it. No one is saying that SC2 is totally inferior to BW. You'd also be wrong if you think SC2 is already better than BW in every way possible.
Btw, some people are saying that dynamic unit movement would make the game too easy, obviously you'd also buff splash damage back to the level of BW so you'd still get splitting.
Just a note: Armies seem larger and more spread out in BW because the view is far more zoomed in. You see only about a 25-50% of what you see on a single screen in SC2.
Also, I don't have any problems following battles in SC2, i can see what is being hit by banelings, what gets fungaled, etc., so i can't see your problem. It seems to be a matter of subjective perception (as is the whole SC2 vs BW debate).
1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
On June 19 2012 19:13 Rabiator wrote: 1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
On point 2, i would like to say that, personally, i don't find SC2 much more complicated that any other game, and that understanding it isn't way more difficult than BW. I started watching SC2 before I actually started watching some BW. I found both amazing to watch, btw, but i still needed some time to understand what was happening (less than someone who would be completely new to Starcraft). And it's not only about understanding battles, but also build orders and so on.
On the last part, though I agree on the statement "Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better", i just can't with the follow-up. We've seen contains in SC2, we've seen beautiful contain-breaks, there aren't much, it's true, but it's up to the players to do it, the game can hardly influence it...
I don't understand this little war between SC2-only-fans and BW-only-fans that i personally think poison a bit this community. I watched both, i enjoyed both, and i only watched SC2 more because i play it more than BW. Since these are truly different games, i don't see the point of ranking them and absolutely find which one is better... I'm sad that BW ends, i'm happy that SC2 grows. I don't see the point of wasting energy saying "Oh, SC2 lacks of... this SC2 thing is sh*t", or "BW sucks, BW is too old, etc".
EDIT: And a bit more on-topic, though i liked the BW units (i mean "those which aren't in SC2, or at least not in the same way"), i think that making an HD copy of BW would've kinda sucked. WTF would have been the point of this ?
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
I followed GSL/MLG/Dreamhack since the beginning. For me unit clumping is one of the worse things currently in SC2. It makes larger army pwns smaller army much more heavily, which makes come back more difficult and exacerbates balance issues. Battles end more quickly. It makes army seem way smaller. It discourage skirmishes and constant trading and instead encourages mere poking and turtling to a max army. It makes battles much more cluttered and hard to make out which is the main reason people say BW looks than SC2. There are other issues but this is prolly the most important one, along with worker mining AI.
I don't think people who says SC2 is fine actually watched any good BW game. What got me into starcraft in the first place was the 2008 OSL final between July and Best. As much as I like SC2 I don't think I've ever seen a game that brings anywhere close to the excitement I felt in the last game of that series. BW simply feels much more unpredictable and dynamic, where there just seems to be a much wider possibility of what you can do to win the game. You probably heard of the game between Flash and Zero where Flash massed Turret and Siege Tank, never attacked and win. Or the game between Great and Bisu where Great built Hatcheries in the middle of the map and sunken contained Bisu on 3 bases. Or the game between FBH and Savior where FBH loses his entire main, yet comeback with BC/Medics. Game 5 between MVP and Squirtle was cool, but it was nowhere near the kind of craziness that BW spews out from time to time. Ever notice how many PvZ seems to end in a 2-base all-in? Sure there are hydra-busts in BW but at least those don't end in just 15 seconds of a battle.
If you watch those games, notice how the ultralings were always all spread out when attacking, compare to SC2 where it's hard to tell what is being fungaled and what is being hit by baneling and everything just bash against each other. The Zergs were never maxed in those games, yet their army always seems much larger than what you would see in a maxed out SC2 Zerg. Pointing out how SC2 isn't completely horrible doesn't mean anything. BW set the standard and SC2 being the sequel should certainly be compared to it. No one is saying that SC2 is totally inferior to BW. You'd also be wrong if you think SC2 is already better than BW in every way possible.
Btw, some people are saying that dynamic unit movement would make the game too easy, obviously you'd also buff splash damage back to the level of BW so you'd still get splitting.
Just a note: Armies seem larger and more spread out in BW because the view is far more zoomed in. You see only about a 25-50% of what you see on a single screen in SC2.
Also, I don't have any problems following battles in SC2, i can see what is being hit by banelings, what gets fungaled, etc., so i can't see your problem. It seems to be a matter of subjective perception (as is the whole SC2 vs BW debate).
1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
Also note that Hydras cost only 1 supply, Tanks only cost 2, and Ultras only cost 4 supply. Not saying that it should be that way in SC2, but it is a contributing factor.
On June 19 2012 19:13 Rabiator wrote: 1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
On point 2, i would like to say that, personally, i don't find SC2 much more complicated that any other game, and that understanding it isn't way more difficult than BW. I started watching SC2 before I actually started watching some BW. I found both amazing to watch, btw, but i still needed some time to understand what was happening (less than someone who would be completely new to Starcraft). And it's not only about understanding battles, but also build orders and so on.
On the last part, though I agree on the statement "Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better", i just can't with the follow-up. We've seen contains in SC2, we've seen beautiful contain-breaks, there aren't much, it's true, but it's up to the players to do it, the game can hardly influence it...
I don't understand this little war between SC2-only-fans and BW-only-fans that i personally think poison a bit this community. I watched both, i enjoyed both, and i only watched SC2 more because i play it more than BW. Since these are truly different games, i don't see the point of ranking them and absolutely find which one is better... I'm sad that BW ends, i'm happy that SC2 grows. I don't see the point of wasting energy saying "Oh, SC2 lacks of... this SC2 thing is sh*t", or "BW sucks, BW is too old, etc".
EDIT: And a bit more on-topic, though i liked the BW units (i mean "those which aren't in SC2, or at least not in the same way"), i think that making an HD copy of BW would've kinda sucked. WTF would have been the point of this ?
I played SC2:BW. Yeah it's pretty fun, but at the same time, also fundamentally broken imo. The melee AI is way too good, and units actually do clump alot more than in BW, even with 12 unit selection. SC2 really needs SC2 units, but I'd really prefer for them to have "BW-style" units which are either more versatile and less damage intense, or units that do a TON of damage but require an equal amount of finesse and control to use well.
And on contains, I have NEVER seen a contain by the Zerg, which atm I think Zerg lacks. I really hope swarm host can somehow remedy that, but at the same time, it looks like a unit that, even if you don't have detection, you could just run past. Kill the initial locusts and them move on to attack something else, but we'll see.
I dunno why I like discussing unit design or "Oh, SC2 lacks.... ". I guess I'd like to believe that people's opinions can actually change how the game will turn out.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
I followed GSL/MLG/Dreamhack since the beginning. For me unit clumping is one of the worse things currently in SC2. It makes larger army pwns smaller army much more heavily, which makes come back more difficult and exacerbates balance issues. Battles end more quickly. It makes army seem way smaller. It discourage skirmishes and constant trading and instead encourages mere poking and turtling to a max army. It makes battles much more cluttered and hard to make out which is the main reason people say BW looks than SC2. There are other issues but this is prolly the most important one, along with worker mining AI.
I don't think people who says SC2 is fine actually watched any good BW game. What got me into starcraft in the first place was the 2008 OSL final between July and Best. As much as I like SC2 I don't think I've ever seen a game that brings anywhere close to the excitement I felt in the last game of that series. BW simply feels much more unpredictable and dynamic, where there just seems to be a much wider possibility of what you can do to win the game. You probably heard of the game between Flash and Zero where Flash massed Turret and Siege Tank, never attacked and win. Or the game between Great and Bisu where Great built Hatcheries in the middle of the map and sunken contained Bisu on 3 bases. Or the game between FBH and Savior where FBH loses his entire main, yet comeback with BC/Medics. Game 5 between MVP and Squirtle was cool, but it was nowhere near the kind of craziness that BW spews out from time to time. Ever notice how many PvZ seems to end in a 2-base all-in? Sure there are hydra-busts in BW but at least those don't end in just 15 seconds of a battle.
If you watch those games, notice how the ultralings were always all spread out when attacking, compare to SC2 where it's hard to tell what is being fungaled and what is being hit by baneling and everything just bash against each other. The Zergs were never maxed in those games, yet their army always seems much larger than what you would see in a maxed out SC2 Zerg. Pointing out how SC2 isn't completely horrible doesn't mean anything. BW set the standard and SC2 being the sequel should certainly be compared to it. No one is saying that SC2 is totally inferior to BW. You'd also be wrong if you think SC2 is already better than BW in every way possible.
Btw, some people are saying that dynamic unit movement would make the game too easy, obviously you'd also buff splash damage back to the level of BW so you'd still get splitting.
Just a note: Armies seem larger and more spread out in BW because the view is far more zoomed in. You see only about a 25-50% of what you see on a single screen in SC2.
Also, I don't have any problems following battles in SC2, i can see what is being hit by banelings, what gets fungaled, etc., so i can't see your problem. It seems to be a matter of subjective perception (as is the whole SC2 vs BW debate).
1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
Also note that Hydras cost only 1 supply, Tanks only cost 2, and Ultras only cost 4 supply. Not saying that it should be that way in SC2, but it is a contributing factor.
On June 19 2012 19:13 Rabiator wrote: 1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
On point 2, i would like to say that, personally, i don't find SC2 much more complicated that any other game, and that understanding it isn't way more difficult than BW. I started watching SC2 before I actually started watching some BW. I found both amazing to watch, btw, but i still needed some time to understand what was happening (less than someone who would be completely new to Starcraft). And it's not only about understanding battles, but also build orders and so on.
On the last part, though I agree on the statement "Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better", i just can't with the follow-up. We've seen contains in SC2, we've seen beautiful contain-breaks, there aren't much, it's true, but it's up to the players to do it, the game can hardly influence it...
I don't understand this little war between SC2-only-fans and BW-only-fans that i personally think poison a bit this community. I watched both, i enjoyed both, and i only watched SC2 more because i play it more than BW. Since these are truly different games, i don't see the point of ranking them and absolutely find which one is better... I'm sad that BW ends, i'm happy that SC2 grows. I don't see the point of wasting energy saying "Oh, SC2 lacks of... this SC2 thing is sh*t", or "BW sucks, BW is too old, etc".
EDIT: And a bit more on-topic, though i liked the BW units (i mean "those which aren't in SC2, or at least not in the same way"), i think that making an HD copy of BW would've kinda sucked. WTF would have been the point of this ?
I played SC2:BW. Yeah it's pretty fun, but at the same time, also fundamentally broken imo. The melee AI is way too good, and units actually do clump alot more than in BW, even with 12 unit selection. SC2 really needs SC2 units, but I'd really prefer for them to have "BW-style" units which are either more versatile and less damage intense, or units that do a TON of damage but require an equal amount of finesse and control to use well.
And on contains, I have NEVER seen a contain by the Zerg, which atm I think Zerg lacks. I really hope swarm host can somehow remedy that, but at the same time, it looks like a unit that, even if you don't have detection, you could just run past. Kill the initial locusts and them move on to attack something else, but we'll see.
I dunno why I like discussing unit design or "Oh, SC2 lacks.... ". I guess I'd like to believe that people's opinions can actually change how the game will turn out.
I know what you are trying to say here however if and only if these people are actually the developers of the game than we probably could see a probably change in the future . Look at how starcraft was first release ? fans were vocal that they game wasn't good enough and these made blizzard scrap the first beta of the game and remake the game from the ground up and again to become the best rts game in the world right now. I think maybe trying to prove and maybe change a few people's opinion about the game probably will help you rest well than I think it's pretty much justified to do so.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
I followed GSL/MLG/Dreamhack since the beginning. For me unit clumping is one of the worse things currently in SC2. It makes larger army pwns smaller army much more heavily, which makes come back more difficult and exacerbates balance issues. Battles end more quickly. It makes army seem way smaller. It discourage skirmishes and constant trading and instead encourages mere poking and turtling to a max army. It makes battles much more cluttered and hard to make out which is the main reason people say BW looks than SC2. There are other issues but this is prolly the most important one, along with worker mining AI.
I don't think people who says SC2 is fine actually watched any good BW game. What got me into starcraft in the first place was the 2008 OSL final between July and Best. As much as I like SC2 I don't think I've ever seen a game that brings anywhere close to the excitement I felt in the last game of that series. BW simply feels much more unpredictable and dynamic, where there just seems to be a much wider possibility of what you can do to win the game. You probably heard of the game between Flash and Zero where Flash massed Turret and Siege Tank, never attacked and win. Or the game between Great and Bisu where Great built Hatcheries in the middle of the map and sunken contained Bisu on 3 bases. Or the game between FBH and Savior where FBH loses his entire main, yet comeback with BC/Medics. Game 5 between MVP and Squirtle was cool, but it was nowhere near the kind of craziness that BW spews out from time to time. Ever notice how many PvZ seems to end in a 2-base all-in? Sure there are hydra-busts in BW but at least those don't end in just 15 seconds of a battle.
If you watch those games, notice how the ultralings were always all spread out when attacking, compare to SC2 where it's hard to tell what is being fungaled and what is being hit by baneling and everything just bash against each other. The Zergs were never maxed in those games, yet their army always seems much larger than what you would see in a maxed out SC2 Zerg. Pointing out how SC2 isn't completely horrible doesn't mean anything. BW set the standard and SC2 being the sequel should certainly be compared to it. No one is saying that SC2 is totally inferior to BW. You'd also be wrong if you think SC2 is already better than BW in every way possible.
Btw, some people are saying that dynamic unit movement would make the game too easy, obviously you'd also buff splash damage back to the level of BW so you'd still get splitting.
Just a note: Armies seem larger and more spread out in BW because the view is far more zoomed in. You see only about a 25-50% of what you see on a single screen in SC2.
Also, I don't have any problems following battles in SC2, i can see what is being hit by banelings, what gets fungaled, etc., so i can't see your problem. It seems to be a matter of subjective perception (as is the whole SC2 vs BW debate).
1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
Also note that Hydras cost only 1 supply, Tanks only cost 2, and Ultras only cost 4 supply. Not saying that it should be that way in SC2, but it is a contributing factor.
On June 19 2012 19:13 Rabiator wrote: 1. Armies in BW seem larger because they are spread out more. That is a fact which comes from "12 units per control group" and "clunky unit movement". This requires the view to be far out, but that isnt a bad thing. 2. Who cares about YOU being able to follow a battle? The tight formations and battles are harder to follow for non-SC2-players, which are the important demographic to grow the eSport. Think about your granny, would she be able to understand what is happening? The worst matchup is always Zerg melee battles because all the units are kinda brownish and look the same. Having units spread out more would be a VERY GOOD THING for the viewer.
As you said it is subjective which way you prefer, but the point is that SC2 is much faster than BW and that makes it harder to understand for potential new audiences. Sadly too many people only think about their own little self and never consider consequences objectively. Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better and Starcraft has lost the "contain a defender with bunkers, turrets and siege tanks" tactic in the transition from BW to SC2 already.
On point 2, i would like to say that, personally, i don't find SC2 much more complicated that any other game, and that understanding it isn't way more difficult than BW. I started watching SC2 before I actually started watching some BW. I found both amazing to watch, btw, but i still needed some time to understand what was happening (less than someone who would be completely new to Starcraft). And it's not only about understanding battles, but also build orders and so on.
On the last part, though I agree on the statement "Bigger / prettier explosions and higher kill counts dont automatically make a sequel better", i just can't with the follow-up. We've seen contains in SC2, we've seen beautiful contain-breaks, there aren't much, it's true, but it's up to the players to do it, the game can hardly influence it...
I don't understand this little war between SC2-only-fans and BW-only-fans that i personally think poison a bit this community. I watched both, i enjoyed both, and i only watched SC2 more because i play it more than BW. Since these are truly different games, i don't see the point of ranking them and absolutely find which one is better... I'm sad that BW ends, i'm happy that SC2 grows. I don't see the point of wasting energy saying "Oh, SC2 lacks of... this SC2 thing is sh*t", or "BW sucks, BW is too old, etc".
EDIT: And a bit more on-topic, though i liked the BW units (i mean "those which aren't in SC2, or at least not in the same way"), i think that making an HD copy of BW would've kinda sucked. WTF would have been the point of this ?
I played SC2:BW. Yeah it's pretty fun, but at the same time, also fundamentally broken imo. The melee AI is way too good, and units actually do clump alot more than in BW, even with 12 unit selection. SC2 really needs SC2 units, but I'd really prefer for them to have "BW-style" units which are either more versatile and less damage intense, or units that do a TON of damage but require an equal amount of finesse and control to use well.
And on contains, I have NEVER seen a contain by the Zerg, which atm I think Zerg lacks. I really hope swarm host can somehow remedy that, but at the same time, it looks like a unit that, even if you don't have detection, you could just run past. Kill the initial locusts and them move on to attack something else, but we'll see.
I dunno why I like discussing unit design or "Oh, SC2 lacks.... ". I guess I'd like to believe that people's opinions can actually change how the game will turn out.
I did see a zerg contain, once. I think it was LiveZerg vs MaNa on Shakuras IIRC. MaNa pyloned his expand, LiveZerg proxy hatched MaNa, and then stole his expand with a hatch, and planted spines everywhere. That was an amazing game, and MaNa finally broke the contain with colossi and good micro. I didn't remember having seen a zerg trying to do a contain, apart from this one. Does this mean it isn't doable ? I don't know, but I wouldn't say : "For sure : no". SC2 is still very young. What were the "standard plays" back in 2002-2003 in BW to those in 2011 ? I think there were some huge difference. Though, has the game completely changed between 2003 and 2011 ?
Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved.
I agree with you on this one, there is nothing wrong in trying to make the game better and come up with suggestions etc. However it does matter how you are really trying, for example look at this threads title. Do you honestly think that considering this forum's history on the subject this is an appropriate way to start such an effort?
I think even the greatest efforts give no real answers from Blizzard. See Berrin's resource thread or earlier Lalush suggestion about economy/micro. People were spewing tons of good ideas but in the end blizzard is "SO WE HAVE OUR WARHOUND" marketing fluff. No one really knows what goes what not, no one really knows what devs intention is besides the obvious one which is to make "best rts eva".
People were and some still are passionate about *growing* of SC2 but more in terms of design, because skill grow and homogenization will come naturally. Its pretty sad that "clumping" or "balls" issues became empty words because of overuse and it was pretty sad that D.Browder disregarded this issue on core design level and trys to fix with a workaround which in a long run may really hurt SC2.
Design may hurt or help, designer may pigeonhole certain plays to be simply impossible in high level, we cant have that. SC2 has to be beautiful in 1base, 2base,3base and in base race scenarios and when 4 units fight 4 units. BW was, so if SC2 really want to have that "best rts eva" we have to push for unversality of gameplay not pigeonholing.
Remember we are on clock with some changes and for some it seems like its to late already.
On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote: It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same.
To elaborate on your point, this is exactly why I get annoyed with so much patching. I really feel like I just want to see how the metagame plays out over time without patching.
But I'd also like to disagree with you to some extent. There is definitely a much higher skill ceiling in SC2 than in just about any other RTS ever made with the possible exception of BW. I'd say that's pretty good praise, wouldn't you? That said the current racial interactions, as you put it, are they way they are largely because of lackluster units. A more dynamic game comes from a player having various options available to him/her that all have different pros and cons but are all viable to some degree. People hate the colossus because it manages to stifle so many options all by itself. If you're a terran and you see your opponent get 3+ collossi, what are your options? Are there any meaningful options aside from vikings? Well, not really no, nothing that will perform well reliably anyway.
TvZ, historically, has probably been the most dynamic matchup in that both players have a number of different builds/playstyles/unit choices that can work, but even TvZ has been a little bit on the stale side lately.
Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved.
I actually completely agree that the units we have are disposal are currently somewhat lackluster, which is something that the expansions are looking to change. However, there's a difference between needing more tools in your existing toolbox and needing a completely different toolbox altogether. Blizzard appears to be doing a good job of recognizing where holes in the player options exist, and I trust that their implementation of new units will solve most of those problems. And when LotV comes out, I expect that whatever new holes pop up/are leftover will also be attempted to be fixed.
It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
That's where I would disagree with you. I've got a bunch of screen shots from last weekend's Dreamhack that very much illustrate my complaints on unit clumping There's been some improvement sure, but it's not so significant as all that.
Most of the lineup at Dreamhack would be considered doormats at many other events at the moment, although there were some pretty good players for sure. I wouldn't doubt that you managed to take a ton of screenshots of players with comparatively poor unit control blobbing around, because that's what is easiest to do. It is NOT what is most efficient to do, and it is NOT what the actual top players prefer to do with their army. Protoss is a little blobbier by nature, but it's not like this is new to Starcraft (1a2a3a, anyone?)
EPT
