EPTI loved the lurker, but I don't need this unit in sc2. Sc2 is a different game, no kidding. If you want to be a good football player, you need to have a really extensive set of skills with the ball. 2 players can have a totally different playing style, but both of them are able to make a perfect pass, controll the ball and everything else. Sc2 needs to take over these mechanics which deliver fun, excitement and more skill to the game. Am I the only one who fucking misses jaedong muta's (not saying my control is like jaedong). Like a bawzzz.
Reluctance to Re-Introduce BW-Units - Page 32
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
wcr.4fun
Belgium686 Posts
I loved the lurker, but I don't need this unit in sc2. Sc2 is a different game, no kidding. If you want to be a good football player, you need to have a really extensive set of skills with the ball. 2 players can have a totally different playing style, but both of them are able to make a perfect pass, controll the ball and everything else. Sc2 needs to take over these mechanics which deliver fun, excitement and more skill to the game. Am I the only one who fucking misses jaedong muta's (not saying my control is like jaedong). Like a bawzzz. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 20 2012 06:30 NicolBolas wrote: Well, here's an idea. I know it's kinda crazy, but here me out: If you want units that do cool micro tricks, then ask for that! We did....and we got the Phoenix....doesn't make one think Blizzard understands moving shot micro whatsoever. On June 20 2012 07:39 RampancyTW wrote: There are no random movement elements with the clumping. Dynamic movement would add elements of randomness. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. SC2 works just fine with its current movement mechanics, however, and there's no objective need to change them. See, statements like this just prove you are not familiar enough with both games to even make a good comparison. Keep telling yourself that they're the same and then don't be surprised when SC2's lifespan as an esport is shorter than it's total dev time because all the Kespa players quit and foreigners moved on to CS:GO or some other game where the developer is more responsive and humble when attempting to evolve an esports masterpiece. The objective need (beyond the points you reject) is increasing the size and scale of battles as well as legibility. You just keep ignoring that point when it is brought up. Which sport is more popular, rugby or soccer? Why do you think that is? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:07 0neder wrote: We did....and we got the Phoenix....doesn't make one think Blizzard understands moving shot micro whatsoever. I remember that one. At the time I defended it as a partial solution and that maybe Blizzard would continue developing it. But it seems they just simply misunderstood? (because that's quite clearly not moving shot) and then washed their hands of the matter. Added moving shot to one unit. Check. Whereas so many units could benefit from a proper implementation of moving shot. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:14 Falling wrote: I remember that one. At the time I defended it as a partial solution and that maybe Blizzard would continue developing it. But it seems they just simply misunderstood? (because that's quite clearly not moving shot) and then washed their hands of the matter. Added moving shot to one unit. Check. Whereas so many units could benefit from a proper implementation of moving shot. Yes, even if neutered within the 'next-gen' physics engine, it could still be done and has been done by amateurs already. Clearly, the phoenix was a horrible appeasement that noone who actually understood moving shot bought whatsoever. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:07 0neder wrote: How do they prove anything negative about me when both statements are factually correct?We did....and we got the Phoenix....doesn't make one think Blizzard understands moving shot micro whatsoever. See, statements like this just prove you are not familiar enough with both games to even make a good comparison. Keep telling yourself that they're the same and then don't be surprised when SC2's lifespan as an esport is shorter than it's total dev time because all the Kespa players quit and foreigners moved on to CS:GO or some other game where the developer is more responsive and humble when attempting to evolve an esports masterpiece. The objective need (beyond the points you reject) is increasing the size and scale of battles as well as legibility. You just keep ignoring that point when it is brought up. Which sport is more popular, rugby or soccer? Why do you think that is? Blizzard is fairly responsive and reasonable, if not humble. Player skill has been increasing the size and scale of battles, as well as their longevity and legibility (which I don't think was ever a common problem to begin with). And rugby is still a quite successful game, despite it not being as popular as soccer. You are one of the main posters I was referring to when I say your arguments are outdated. Top level play has rendered many of your complaints irrelevant, which will become more and more apparent as other players reach the current "top" level, the top players continue progressing, and those that can't cut it are phased out of the scene almost entirely (see: IdrA). | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On June 19 2012 23:26 Fyrewolf wrote: Because Strategy encompasses so much, almost everything in game is related to strategy, even if it is not readily apparent or at the forefront. Every single click is a decision and every single click has a reason. Many of them are very easy decisions, or so ingrained in our response that you don't need to put a whole lot of time and thought in them, so that other more important ones which do require strategy get overlooked. You may click to check your opponents upgrades, in order to decide whether to chrono your own, or you may decide not to click even, to save scan for incoming cloak. And there aren't many tactics apart from spell casting and splitting units in BW either when it comes to combat. Just because something feels routine because you have ingrained your strategic response, doesn't mean the response isn't still strategic. While the game should be demanding, that demand also doesn't have to be specifically mechanical, and in fact, the demand is supposed to be that you have to make your decisions in real time(through clicks). By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions. However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game. I never said that the interface should be something you should fight against. You're assuming this because that is what makes BW skill ceiling so high, and I'm pro-BW  .If your strategy is to have more stuff than your opponent, then it's actually a good strategy. Whether that be through harassment or other means, Macro is actually wins you games. The reason why the game should be demanding is because you need to macro at the same time you are maneuvering something. I'm actually happy that they exist, but whether or not they work well is something you should ask Barrin about. There's actually a lot more positioning and setup involved in BW than you realize. For example, when Zerg tries you break a Bio/Tank timing, the zerglings have to surround the bio/buy enough time, whilst the lurkers burrow just in range of the siege tanks to attack them. When you are going for a large push in TvP, you lay mines alongside your push at an exact distance from your mines to your tanks. When you see that the Protoss army is at a close enough distance, you siege up. You move the vultures in front to cushion against any zealot attacks. And about TvP being passive in BW, have you not seen Fantasy/Baby do dropship harassment style? It's extremely fun to watch, as well as being a solid style. Just because a lot of people play like Flash/take fast thirds doesn't mean that all TvP's are like that. Some people still do timing attacks off 2 bases. I watched Parting vs Symbol (SHOCK HORROR I ACTUALLY WATCH PRO SC2) on GSL yesterday. Parting took a fast 3rd by just having 6 sentries, and denied any attempt to drop by having good observer placement. There were small prods and pokes, but really you can't do anything at all, the result was an extremely passive game. Almost as if you start the game at 9 minutes. To me, that's passivity. I don't remember who said it, but it feels really binary. Sentries just deny everything up to late game. In TvP you had tanks, which gave you a lot of defensive power, but you also had strategies like bulldogging (dropping zealots onto high ground tanks, very rage inducing for terran player ) which made it so that you could definitely attack if you wanted to.(BTW what happened to phoenix openings, did that just die out of popularity?) | ||
|
Flanlord
265 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:31 Xiphos wrote: Honestly the real bone I have to pick with Blizzard is the lack of reasoning for new units not gameplay but lore-wise. You would assume that all 3 races would develop much more efficient and deadlier fighters. With the exception of Stalkers, Roaches, Queens, Mothership, and Thors, all other newly introduced units are less efficacious than their old counterpart. I don't know man, I prefer the marauder/reaper/hellion to the firebat. The sentry didn't really replace anything, but they play a fairly integral role in almost every situation, and are the top overlord ticklers in the game. Hellions, Vikings, Infestors, Collosi, Marauders, Sentries, Immortals... I don't know man... feel like you and I have been watching different games. Or something? Reavers weren't very effective, and relied on other units too much, doesn't new tech being part of the main force make more sense? You have your AoE laser weapons on the colossi, and anti-vehicle cannons on the immortal, which itself is more tank-like. If the firebat was meant to fight small fast things, why not have it on a vehicle? | ||
|
convention
United States622 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:34 Nazza wrote: I never said that the interface should be something you should fight against. You're assuming this because that is what makes BW skill ceiling so high, and I'm pro-BW .If your strategy is to have more stuff than your opponent, then it's actually a good strategy. Whether that be through harassment or other means, Macro is actually wins you games. The reason why the game should be demanding is because you need to macro at the same time you are maneuvering something. I'm actually happy that they exist, but whether or not they work well is something you should ask Barrin about. There's actually a lot more positioning and setup involved in BW than you realize. For example, when Zerg tries you break a Bio/Tank timing, the zerglings have to surround the bio/buy enough time, whilst the lurkers burrow just in range of the siege tanks to attack them. When you are going for a large push in TvP, you lay mines alongside your push at an exact distance from your mines to your tanks. When you see that the Protoss army is at a close enough distance, you siege up. You move the vultures in front to cushion against any zealot attacks. And about TvP being passive in BW, have you not seen Fantasy/Baby do dropship harassment style? It's extremely fun to watch, as well as being a solid style. Just because a lot of people play like Flash/take fast thirds doesn't mean that all TvP's are like that. Some people still do timing attacks off 2 bases. I watched Parting vs Symbol (SHOCK HORROR I ACTUALLY WATCH PRO SC2) on GSL yesterday. Parting took a fast 3rd by just having 6 sentries, and denied any attempt to drop by having good observer placement. There were small prods and pokes, but really you can't do anything at all, the result was an extremely passive game. Almost as if you start the game at 9 minutes. To me, that's passivity. I don't remember who said it, but it feels really binary. Sentries just deny everything up to late game. In TvP you had tanks, which gave you a lot of defensive power, but you also had strategies like bulldogging (dropping zealots onto high ground tanks, very rage inducing for terran player ) which made it so that you could definitely attack if you wanted to.There are also boring games in BW, just as there are exciting games in SC2. Parting plays a very defensive style, so it isn't fair to just take his games and say that this is why SC2 is boring. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
Reavers weren't very effective, and relied on other units too much, doesn't new tech being part of the main force make more sense? You have your AoE laser weapons on the colossi, and anti-vehicle cannons on the immortal, which itself is more tank-like. Meh. I don't really care which one feels more powerful lore-wise. But gameplay wise, Reavers were powerful at low levels (big shot damage), but skill multiplied their effectiveness tremendously. There is the skill of constantly keeping the shuttle at top speed so it can pick-up and run a moments notice. There is the skill firing the shot at the right direction so the it will connect (the direction workers run, makes a HUGE difference.) There is the skill of picking which unit to target because the splash was actually directional- most typically firing at the farthest target, gave the most damage to units in front of it. There is the skill of dropping a zealot before the reaver to tank damage (abusing tank overkill). Therefore it made a difference on what angle you attacked from (even the direction the tank's turret is facing makes a difference) so that you get maximum damage. It was a multi-functional unit that could worker raid, or pick apart reinforcing units as well as join that bulldog force that Nazza was talking about or retreat back to defend. In the hands of a skilled Protoss player, it could shred the defences of an opponent and all due to skill and reflexes rather than building the right unit counter at the right time. To me Reavers just scream skills and produces spectator friendly 'wow' moments. But sure take it away. Just replace it something that requires equal amounts of skill. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:59 convention wrote: There are also boring games in BW, just as there are exciting games in SC2. Parting plays a very defensive style, so it isn't fair to just take his games and say that this is why SC2 is boring. I'm talking about passivity and options here. I feel like there was no other option for Symbol other than to just let it sit, and take more bases himself. Of course, I could be wrong, Symbol is also a passive player (but the fact that he went for drops leads me to think otherwise) and that other Zergs might be doing mid-game lair tech muta harassment vs this style or a less passive style, but atm, it feels really boring in the first 9 minutes. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:44 Flanlord wrote: I don't know man, I prefer the marauder/reaper/hellion to the firebat. The sentry didn't really replace anything, but they play a fairly integral role in almost every situation, and are the top overlord ticklers in the game. Hellions, Vikings, Infestors, Collosi, Marauders, Sentries, Immortals... I don't know man... feel like you and I have been watching different games. Or something? Reavers weren't very effective, and relied on other units too much, doesn't new tech being part of the main force make more sense? You have your AoE laser weapons on the colossi, and anti-vehicle cannons on the immortal, which itself is more tank-like. If the firebat was meant to fight small fast things, why not have it on a vehicle? Reliance on other units is not a bad thing. The synergy between lurkers, defilers and cracklings made it extremely fun to watch and extremely fun to play. It was almost like lurkers got a completely new upgrade in Hive tech. Swarm would go over the lurkers, they would be invincible to ranged units, defilers would consume lings, push the dark swarm further and further. Essentially you had a lot of action going on, which is good for the game and good for spectactors. The main problem with the colossi is that, other than target firing a second/middle row of units to cause more damage, there seems to be no way to micro it or to make it more efficient. I don't really have a problem with the hellion itself, but I do have a problem with the passive ability upgrade. All it does is increase damage, it doesn't increase micro potential. If the upgrade was a speed upgrade or a fire rate/firing delay removal upgrade, it would increase the maneuverability of the hellion, and thus increase the damage output in the hands of a skilled player. The same with combat shields upgrade and the immortal's shield ability. Granted, they allow you to have timing attacks, which I suppose you could call "strategy", but it is more exciting to have something that allows micro and changes the dynamic. For example, with stim upgrade, suddenly a skilled player can micro against banelings and put pressure on the Zerg. For the Protoss, they can put pressure with the inital stalkers and zealots, until speedling upgrade arrives. And Blink upgrade allows Stalkers to give out more potential than without. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 20 2012 08:07 0neder wrote: We did....and we got the Phoenix....doesn't make one think Blizzard understands moving shot micro whatsoever. The community asked for a unit that moves and shoots. Blizzard gave us a unit that moves and shoots. If you wanted patrol micro, you should have asked for that. Granted, they're not going to give that to you, but you still should have focused it on the specific mechanics of the micro rather than the effect of the micro (being able to shoot while moving). | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
On June 21 2012 02:50 NicolBolas wrote: The community asked for a unit that moves and shoots. Blizzard gave us a unit that moves and shoots. If you wanted patrol micro, you should have asked for that. Granted, they're not going to give that to you, but you still should have focused it on the specific mechanics of the micro rather than the effect of the micro (being able to shoot while moving). But moving-shot IS patrol micro. Your first sentence should be: The community asked for a unit that has moving-shot. Blizzard gave us a unit that moves and shoots simultaneously. (Btw, almost every unit in Starcraft can move and shoot. Even the colossus.) | ||
|
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
On June 21 2012 02:50 NicolBolas wrote: The community asked for a unit that moves and shoots. Blizzard gave us a unit that moves and shoots. If you wanted patrol micro, you should have asked for that. Granted, they're not going to give that to you, but you still should have focused it on the specific mechanics of the micro rather than the effect of the micro (being able to shoot while moving). Actually if you go back to Lalush's article in 2010 Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? It explained it quite well. Granted some of the concerns are outdated, but the lack of moving shot is just as relevant then as it is now. Moving Shot A series of techniques employed to avoid deceleration when firing. Applied in Starcraft using the following techniques: Attack command: Right click or a-click on a unit followed by a quick move command to avoid deceleration. If you don’t a-click on a unit or building your units will act like SC2 air units. Hold position: Move units towards enemy and press H followed by a move command to avoid deceleration. Allows spreading shots and dealing damage more efficiently as opposed to target firing one single unit and wasting damage. Patrol command: Allows you to fire from a 90° angle without losing speed. Is frequently employed against scourge. Moving Shot: When the firing animation is shorter than the built in delay for deceleration. Gliding Shot: When the firing animation is longer than the built in delay for deceleration. What we got with the Phoenix was a pretty clear misunderstanding of the issue, particularly as they never worked on it again. In addition, it was only ever attempted on one unit. It really doesn't break unit ai or make some sort of arbitrary 'fight against the interface' or whatever it is people are always going on about. You can 1a attack just the same. Moving shot just adds to the more skilled player's arsenal. Win-win. | ||
|
DuraLot
Norway32 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 21 2012 07:07 Falling wrote: Actually if you go back to Lalush's article in 2010 Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? It explained it quite well. Granted some of the concerns are outdated, but the lack of moving shot is just as relevant then as it is now. What we got with the Phoenix was a pretty clear misunderstanding of the issue, particularly as they never worked on it again. In addition, it was only ever attempted on one unit. Yes, that's what one person in the community said. But do you believe that Blizzard developers read that particular piece? Odds are, no. Imagine that the SC community is a crowd. And Blizzard is sitting atop an ivory tower. All they can hear is general shouting from the crowd. If the crowd isn't united, then it's just a cacophany of noise that Blizzard can easily ignore. But if the crowd all shouts the same thing, Blizzard can hear it. All the community said in unison was "moving shot". That's all Blizzard heard, so that's what they gave us. They missed the point because of a lack of effective communication between themselves and the community. Who's fault is that? Both of us. It's the community's fault, because we keep forming into mobs when we need to do a much better job of communicating complex ideas instead of slogans and terms like "moving shot". And it's Blizzard's fault for not scanning the community better to find kernels of wisdom among the unwashed masses. Though it's Blizzard's fault doubly so for not realizing that this stuff was important in the first place... On June 21 2012 07:07 Falling wrote: It really doesn't break unit ai or make some sort of arbitrary 'fight against the interface' or whatever it is people are always going on about. You can 1a attack just the same. Moving shot just adds to the more skilled player's arsenal. Win-win. Whether it is "arbitrary 'fight against the interface'" or not really depends on exactly what is implemented. Patrol/Hold-position-based moving shot is exactly the kind of "arbitrary 'fight against the interface'" that should be avoided.. It's completely arbitrary and very unintuitive. It's nothing you could figure out without someone just accidentally discovering that these functions make deceleration work differently, for an arbitrary reason, than attack moves and regular moves. Now, you don't need the patrol/hold/etc in there at all to get the kind of micro antics we're talking about. What you need is just a specific kind of unit behavior, which is arbitrary but ultimately reasonably intuitive (unlike the prior behavior which was arbitrary and made little sense). The question of acceleration-and-deceleration vs. firing time and so forth. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11439 Posts
I don't know why Blizzard got it wrong- didn't value it, didn't understand it, didn't care about it. But it's unfortunate that something that is SO spectator friendly. It's also something that people can build their careers out of by being known for their great unit micro. (Jaedong's mutas/ Fantasy's vultures/ Baby's wraiths) I don't understand how Patrol/Hold-position-based moving shot is exactly the kind of "arbitrary 'fight against the interface'" that should be avoided.. Unless we have a difference in definitions? To me fight against the interface means you want to do 'x', but 'a' and 'b' get in the way and you have to work around it.What makes it unintuitive exactly? He need to move towards the enemy, so you need a command like right click forward. Then you need to order the unit to come to a screeching halt. A keyboard stroke is superior to another mouse click as it eliminates the possibility of another move command. Then once the shot fires, you need to retreat in a hurry so you use right click again. So if we need a keyboard stroke to stop the unit, why not use hold or patrol that are already there to stop the unit. Particularly hold position is designed to stop the unit. But none of this interferes with your regular attack. It doesn't get in the way of anything. 1a continues to work unabated. It's just additional control that's being added. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 21 2012 09:42 Falling wrote: If they didn't read it, what were they reading? That was a hot thread for a very long time on TL. It's much easier to read an OP that explains what moving shot then to scan the entire 80 page thread for every instance of "moving shot" with no explanation. But even still, what else where we supposed to call it without resorting to write a expository paragraph everytime we refer to the micro we mean. But that's the point. By giving it a name, it makes it impenetrable to someone who doesn't know what it means. Remember: Browder and co don't have time to be spending scouring a forum, even this one. Especially during beta, you can expect that they're working 16 hour days just getting the game out the door. That sort of thing would likely be relegated to someone else. Their job is to guage the feelings of the community. And if all they do is report "the community wants a unit that can move while shooting," that's what gets reported. On June 21 2012 09:42 Falling wrote: I don't understand how Unless we have a difference in definitions? To me fight against the interface means you want to do 'x', but 'a' and 'b' get in the way and you have to work around it. What makes it unintuitive exactly? He need to move towards the enemy, so you need a command like right click forward. Then you need to order the unit to come to a screeching halt. That right there is where it becomes arbitrary and fighting the interface. Why do you need the unit to stop? The whole point of the technique is for the unit to maintain its momentum while firing. By definition, stopping is the exact opposite of what you want the unit to do. What you want is for the unit to fire. But if you issue that command (aka: attack-move), it screws things up and doesn't work correctly. The interface is lying to you, because stop should mean stop. If the best way to make a unit attack while moving is to tell that unit to stop, then there is something wrong with that interface. Even moreso if telling that unit to attack means that it doesn't attack correctly. Imagine explaining this to someone who has only the faintest idea of what an RTS game is. They know that there are units, there's terrain, and that units can be given orders to got to locations, attack, stop, and patrol. Then tell this person that the way to make a certain unit attack while moving is to tell it to follow its target, then tell it to stop, then tell it to patrol in a direction. They would tell you that it makes absolutely no sense. And they'd be right. You can emulate such functionality easily enough by giving the Phoenix an explicit ability, called say "glide". It would cause the Phoenix to enter a "gliding" state wherein it would attack targets while gliding. Such a mechanic would be part of the Phoenix's interface, and thus people could actually see it and understand what it does. It does the same thing, more or less, except it actually makes intutitive sense. | ||
| ||
