having had a look at the new units introduced in HotS, I'm really curious about one thing:
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?
Take for instance the War Hound:
When first it was announced, it seemed to have an Anti-Air missile and operated very much like the Goliath. Back then I was kind of puzzled by how they did not just bring back the Goliath, with the awesome sound any animation of their Anti-Air rockets.
Also strange seems the Swarm Host.
People asked for the Lurker, people got the Lurker. Well, kind of. A burrowed siege unit that can be used to break fortified positions? Alright, but why give Zerg a unit that's so shockingly similar to the Brood Lord instead of the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?
I am now die hard Broodwar fan, only having heard from it once SC2 was out, only having played ~50 games vs. the computer, only having a very vague idea about how units work. So please don't crucify me if I got something wrong.
Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
I bet you'd do a hella lot better job that Dustin Browder.
And they do admit it, hence the battle hellion or the swarm host introductions.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game.
He's worried about his job and his success as a developer.
But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game.
He's worried about his job and his success as a developer.
But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good.
I would love exact copies of BW units, but their review scores would tank. Even WoL was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like BW.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
I mean, I loved Brood War, and I'm glad many of the units and mechanics of the game are in this one, but why are we clamoring for units that we've used time and again in a game released almost 15 years ago? I'm not interested in still using the Lurker or Goliath. It would just come off as laziness to bring back a bunch of old units.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Colossus, Roach, and Marauder I can sort of understand, but lings, infestors, and immortals are all really micro-heavy if used properly. Breaking tank lines, splitting vs banelings, infestor "hit and run from tank shots", and warp prism/immortal micro is all common at high levels.
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Would they really get flamed for bringing exact copies? I mean look at dota 2, it is exactly the same as dota 1, just better graphics, nobody is flaming them for lack of creativity.
This will quickly turn out to be another SC II bash thread as it seems. Starcraft II is a different game with different mechanics. Even if you would reintroduce all that is brood war it would probably play out differently. Also it is not Blizzards intent to copy BW. Dustin Browder even said they would reintroduce the Goliath instead of the Warhound if they have to, balance wise ( I think, correct me if I'm wrong) but they want to create a new game with new ideas. The cool thing about it is that they dont force new ideas closed mindedly, they only favor them. At least that's how I feel about it. I personally like that approach seeing how everyone complains about CoD etc always being the same. SC II is not BW with different graphics obviously and consequently it shouldnt be viewed as such. Since BW is such a great game why would you make another game when BW is already out there and playable? Better Graphics for better enjoyability of the viewers I would guess but even the step from 2D to 3D would make it feel very differently. Improving the AI would have huge consequences, too, I think.
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
I'm really glad they're not tossing in BW units. Some people don't want to play a reuniformed BW. I loved the Lurker, Defiler, Science Vessel and Reaver but I want some new shit in here for SC2.
People moan no matter what happens. SC2 is already pretty successful as an eSport but they also gave to cater for different people, new shiny units mean more casual sales, which is potentially more people watching SC2. I am totally fine with them not adding broodwar units as long as they improve the game as a spectators perspective in some way.
Flightan and jalstar are right, game developers want to explore new options to make a new game. It's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that Starcraft II is NOT Brood War... and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
You can go back to BW for inspiration and a model for balance, but only to a point. Again, SC2 isn't Brood War, and many of the intricacies of BW "balance" is based on every other unit, upgrade, and metagame functions such as game speed, player view, unit control, etc. To balance or fundamentally change and aspect of the game requires messing with another aspect of the game.
For example, Suppose we wanted to bring back Zerg Scourge. Well, that would probably screw up the way Terran armies work right now, with their healing units up in the air. So to balance that we might consider adding some sustain for the Terrans on the ground, say, the old Medics. They get built of out the Barracks, logically, but if we do that then they'll be available earlier, which means the game is imbalanced again... and so it goes. The only solution we know is to simply copy Brood War, because it seems like it works well, but then SC2 wouldn't be much of SC2.
To say that BW has all the solutions to SC2's supposed "problems" is a misguided notion and has been spending a bit too much time looking at that game through the rose-colored glasses.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Good choice of the colossus ;D Loved by many, feared by all.
On June 17 2012 01:10 Dahlian wrote: This will quickly turn out to be another SC II bash thread as it seems. Starcraft II is a different game with different mechanics. Even if you would reintroduce all that is brood war it would probably play out differently. Also it is not Blizzards intent to copy BW. Dustin Browder even said they would reintroduce the Goliath instead of the Warhound if they have to, balance wise ( I think, correct me if I'm wrong) but they want to create a new game with new ideas. The cool thing about it is that they dont force new ideas closed mindedly, they only favor them. At least that's how I feel about it. I personally like that approach seeing how everyone complains about CoD etc always being the same. SC II is not BW with different graphics obviously and consequently it shouldnt be viewed as such. Since BW is such a great game why would you make another game when BW is already out there and playable? Better Graphics for better enjoyability of the viewers I would guess but even the step from 2D to 3D would make it feel very differently. Improving the AI would have huge consequences, too, I think.
Why label it a bash thread when so far, literally nobody has bashed SC2. There is a legitimate concern about Blizzard attempting to reinvent the wheel at the detriment to the game. Needless to say there's nothing more than a superficial BW vs SC2 argument to be made here. You can call out people for that shit AFTER it happens, not before. All it does is make a self fulfilling prophecy.
The viking is for all intents and purposes a goliath that was given the ability to fly. Look at their rough stats and even the way their attacks work, its extremely similar. Lower range/damage machine guns against ground targets and long range missiles against air. Adding the goliath would create quite a bit of overlap in the terran army.
The lurker is in the game and they tried many ways to make it work during WOL alpha/beta, but eventually scrapped it. They couldn't find a place for it in the tech tree, I'm guessing it was pretty impossible to balance because of how the units ball up. I bet you can find more dev comments on it if you just look for them.
if anyone wants more BW units..... they should play BW....
i am really excited for the HOTS units and while there are similarities to BW units... i feel that abilities such as abduct and entomb.... are really unique and will add something new to the game...
Sc2 is already extremely derivative of BW, there's so much of the same things in there that have just been renamed. While I think the Warhound looks kinda dumb(I wouldnt mind the unit if they changed the art), it's not a goliath, because the goliath is still in Sc2, as the Viking, he just had to change his look after the Thor stole his art design away. And you don't like the swarm host...... because it's not the lurker? That's not a good reason. The zerg have evolved since the Brood Wars a decade ago. Lurkers evolved into swarm hosts. They give you the new lurker, and you complain that it's not the old lurker. If you are that difficult to please, then only going back to playing BW will please you. I thought the swarm was supposed to be a single-minded ever advancing sisyphean horde, not an self-destructive internal struggle to cling to failing traditions, like those Protoss nubs they overran on Aiur.
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
This reply seems the most logical to me. Kind of a shame. I, personally, would be one of the people that would not mind BW units being brought back. The lack of creativity doesn't really bother me.
Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
It's one thing to try be original but the blatant remakes of the same kind of unit with the same role(warhound, widowmine) or another additional uncreative long range A-move units(i.e tempest) just makes me want to facepalm. The widow mine is also pretty bad compared to the spidermine. Woohoo it can hit air and has a 10 sec timer before explosion? Just bring back spider mine already, it was perfect and useful as it was and can even punish its user when poorly placed. Dark Swarm is also back in another form in HoTS, why are high templars allowed to return but not defilers in the first place anyway? I also miss the reaver and hate the collosus when it comes to how entertaining they are to watch comparatively. BW's unit design are just fantastic compared to SC2, it's actually pretty sad. How long are terran bioblob vs protoss blob fights gonna remain entertaining to play and watch? It's already old for me a few months ago.
lurkers and reavers would obliterate everything due to the "ball" effect that the units have in this game. I'm happy to see new units although I miss when everything was either a ling or a -lisk for the most part (for zerg)
The new units are suppose to be similar imitations to what BW had. Oracle to Arbiter, Viper to Defiler, Swarm Host -> Lurker.
They all are meant to fit similar roles, just reinvented to both be new and attractive to StarCraft 2 without detracting the creativity and uniqueness of BW units.
I might be off-topic but you can play the Starbow mod which takes some of the Brood War units and puts them together into StarCraft 2 a long with some interesting changes.
It's really fun and you can help the creator the mod balance it out and give ideas to improve it even more. It is extremely similar to what the OP is saying about wanting to have Brood War units into StarCraft 2.
I say just bring back a defiler(get rid of viper/infestor) and have the defiler do fungal and cloud... swarm host is kinda gay tbh, I'd much rather a lurker. Who cares about creativity, we want a game that is great to play and makes sense. Some of the HotS units seem way to op... especially the viper.
On June 17 2012 01:26 Torte de Lini wrote: The new units are suppose to be similar imitations to what BW had. Oracle to Arbiter, Viper to Defiler, Swarm Host -> Lurker.
They all are meant to fit similar roles, just reinvented to both be new and attractive to StarCraft 2 without detracting the creativity and uniqueness of BW units.
Basically this. They fill the same roles as some BW units, but in practice, they're very different and (in some cases) more interesting. Why *would* you just bring back BW units, honestly? SC2 is not BW. Why wouldn't you try to come up with some more creative solutions?
I think they shot themselves in the foot with their "superior" pathing engine. It simply doesnt allow for a lot of creativity as in trying to make broken units that are spectator friendly ( such as the BW ones). Reason is that it is rather impossible to balance those units because the engine doesnt allow the player enough room to micro against them and making player skill a huge factor in the balance of the game. With perfect pathing balancing the game is a nightmare and tge easy way out is just toning the units down and getting rid of the broken stuff.
On June 17 2012 01:12 Eshez wrote: I'm really glad they're not tossing in BW units. Some people don't want to play a reuniformed BW. I loved the Lurker, Defiler, Science Vessel and Reaver but I want some new shit in here for SC2.
I absolutely agree with this, the problem is that the new units kind of suck. As a Protoss player, the Colossus is such a friggin' boring unit to play with! The warhound just looks and plays dumb as all hell. Its not that I want all the BW units back, I would love to get new shiny units! But the new units they are putting in are stupid and dont really look like any fun.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
Hm who would've known that the whole blizzard dev team is actually comprised of one person.
On June 17 2012 01:26 Torte de Lini wrote: The new units are suppose to be similar imitations to what BW had. Oracle to Arbiter, Viper to Defiler, Swarm Host -> Lurker.
They all are meant to fit similar roles, just reinvented to both be new and attractive to StarCraft 2 without detracting the creativity and uniqueness of BW units.
The only problem I have with looking at it from this logical standpoint is the blatant problem of balance they constantly reintroduce to the game. I mean, it's fine and dandy if you come up with new creative ideas that can be placed into many strategic roles/environments. However, when you keep fumbling around with units like the tempest when you have a Carrier, and other forms of air dominance in the current game that you have not even tried to balance then what is their real goal? Prolong the problems of balance until a major patch, release more units, get rid of old ones, and then tackle new balance problems?
It's really just a sad approach to how to make a competitive game. As I said, I'm all for these new units; but the catch line has to be, are you willing to give up on fundamental issues that the game is already dealing with while you simply toss in new content ? Personally, I think the answer to that is: No, you'd have to be incredibly dull and have zero intentions of working hard on developing a good game to approach the problem this way.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
This.
More specifically, SC2 is incredibly well balanced. That said, it still has some fundamental design flaws, and the majority of them are units that make the game very generic and boring (Colossus, Roach, Marauder). Unfortunately, the SC2 developers refuse to suck up their pride and at least take some inspiration from BW units and make new units/tweak units to make the game more interesting. It seems like they are insulted by constant comparisons from BW so they want to make SC2 completely different and try to make it better than BW to give themselves an ego boost, regardless of the consequences.
I miss lurkers to be honest because I loved that positional style of play in BW where you have a standoff and have a really satisfying battle. I think the lurker is a lot better in terms of design than the swarm host but ill take the swarm host to be able to not die against terrans who do a simple timing push.
On June 17 2012 01:12 WArped wrote: People moan no matter what happens. SC2 is already pretty successful as an eSport but they also gave to cater for different people, new shiny units mean more casual sales, which is potentially more people watching SC2. I am totally fine with them not adding broodwar units as long as they improve the game as a spectators perspective in some way.
So basically you only care about Blizzard's financial success and not the depth of the game itself? People with mindsets like you are the reason SC2 turned out the way it did.
On June 17 2012 01:38 NukeD wrote: I think they shot themselves in the foot with their "superior" pathing engine. It simply doesnt allow for a lot of creativity as in trying to make broken units that are spectator friendly ( such as the BW ones). Reason is that it is rather impossible to balance those units because the engine doesnt allow the player enough room to micro against them and making player skill a huge factor in the balance of the game. With perfect pathing balancing the game is a nightmare and tge easy way out is just toning the units down and getting rid of the broken stuff.
Try to tell MarineKing that the pathing is perfect and that his units don't need micro.
Such a common misconception. In SC2 the pathing and army movement is fluid but you have to spend a immense amount of time un-doing that neat ball the game made for you. Since AoE is so strong in SC2 you're constantly fighting the clumping AI.
I agree with Dustin Browder's stance - if you want BW units, go play BW. It is already theoretically possible to make BW units in the SC2 editor - if there's demand for it, it would've already happened.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
Hm who would've known that the whole blizzard dev team is actually comprised of one person.
I said specifically said "and his goons". Please read before you write next time.
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
I pray to god that this is a sarcastic post and I'm just Romanian.
I agree with DB as well. WHY do people want BW units, that is the most stupid thing ever! The only reason you would want bw units in SC2 is because BW is dying, therefore you don't want "good" gameplay, you wan't the novelty back.
Play BW if you want bw units, don't wish BW units for SC2 just because it's new. :/
And in a sense most of the new units have roots from BW which is a good thing, but to make completely the same units is just silly. BW units would never work in a SC2 engine, might as well remake the engine. And the animations and the graphics and everything. Re-publish BW with a new name or something...
Dont forget viper -> defiler, battle helion -> firebat, and oracle/new mothership -> arbiter. The only original ideas blizzard has are terrible (see tempest and most of their WoL units).
Wander how many of the people saying "this is a new game, do not want the old stuff again" actually played BW, for those units to feel old.
With the exception of a few units, i do not realy care that much for having the BW units back. However, a lot of the "new" stuff, is just vastly inferior.
I now think back to the reasoning DB gave on why the lurker was out; that it ovelaped with banelings. In an actual fight, that might be the case, but the lurker was also a siege unit while the banes are not. Now we will have a new siege unit.
So...wander how well they realy understood the BW units and their roles. Or maybe they intentionaly left gaps so they had something to add in the expansions.
This isn't about BW 2.0. This is about Blizzard being irrational. They decide that Terran need some type of defensive space control to enhance mech play vs certain races. Well, the spider mine is already taken and they are hell bent on making "new" units exclusively. Their own idea, the shredder, flops terribly. So they re-invent a (pretty shitty) wheel in the form of the widow mine that uses different and unnecessarily complicated mechanics and is harder to balance.
Almost the same thing happened with the warhound. For a while the warhound for all intents and purposes WAS a goliath, only uglier and with a different name. They even had a suitable model already in-game, but decided against it.
It's so silly because SC2 can never be BW 2.0 no matter how hard you try because of the engine being different.
The new units are just dumbed down versions of brood war units. They are essentially re-introducing the brood war units but under different names.
Hellion battle mode + widow mine serves the same purpose as spider mines- control space Warhound = Goliath? except it can't shoot up? its a backbone unit for mech terrans. Swarm Host is a Lurker with no splash damage The viper has almost the same exact spells as the defiler Muscular augmentation is in sc1. The mothership / mothership core and Oracle are functioning like the arbiter - i even heard stasis field might be in? the only really new concept is the tempest, and what do they come up with? 22 range. hmmmm.....
On June 17 2012 01:51 Azzur wrote: I agree with Dustin Browder's stance - if you want BW units, go play BW. It is already theoretically possible to make BW units in the SC2 editor - if there's demand for it, it would've already happened.
It has.
Oh, and instead of plugging your ears and screaming, "LALALALA GO PLAY BROODWAR", pay attention to the actual problems. BW is only mentioned because it set a standard for interesting and dynamic gameplay to both play and watch.
On June 17 2012 01:55 Andr3 wrote: I agree with DB as well. WHY do people want BW units, that is the most stupid thing ever! The only reason you would want bw units in SC2 is because BW is dying, therefore you don't want "good" gameplay, you wan't the novelty back.
Spoken like a true person who bought SC2 in 2010 and has never played BW in his life beyond one or two times. There's no novelty in wanting a game that isn't a mess from a design perspective.
It's not that people are opting for the exact same units it's just that more experienced veterns who have been around realize that taking a hint from BW would do a lot of good for SC2. There's a reason the game lasted 14 years despite newer titles coming out every single year.
Your extreme ignorance on everything you're talking about is blatantly disrespectful to the greatest RTS of all time, and honestly you should be given a vacation because of such an absurd post. Once again: we don't want a BW copy. We want SC2 devs to take a lesson and drop their egos.
On June 17 2012 TheFish7 wrote: The new units are just dumbed down versions of brood war units. They are essentially re-introducing the brood war units but under different names. Warhound = Goliath? except it can't shoot up? its a backbone unit for mech terrans.
Going to add that your comparison isn't entirely accruate as the Goliath isn't the backbone of mech in BW. The tank is which is why mech was so unique, and why the SC2 developers do not understand what mech is. In SC2 it's turning out to be MMM from the factory with the new warhound.
Some of it might be because of lore reasons. They might make the Warhound have the exact same stats as the Goliath does, but if they just brought back the Goliath people might ask why wasn't it used in WoL. Maybe they have a nice campaign for HotS^^
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Would they really get flamed for bringing exact copies? I mean look at dota 2, it is exactly the same as dota 1, just better graphics, nobody is flaming them for lack of creativity.
Trust me, if you have seen the comment from the mainstream site, you would see it as much as the criticism from BW side, or even more. Most people just labelled it as "outdated" RTS.
SC2 is one of the hardest game to be designed. It had to conform to what BW did, and at the same time it has to catch up with the current RTS design, which is really really hard to do both at the same time.
I'm on the same boat as the OP. Never had interest in BW until after SC2 came out. I had noticed they make similar units, but different enough that they can call them theirs.
The swarm host and the warhound are good examples, except that both suck compared with their BW counterparts, this coming from someone who isn't even a BW fan, should tell them something. Both the lurker and the goliath are strikingly similar to the host and hound, but i personally find the formers having cooler dynamics.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
Hm who would've known that the whole blizzard dev team is actually comprised of one person.
I said specifically said "and his goons". Please read before you write next time.
On June 17 2012 02:03 Freeze967 wrote: Some of it might be because of lore reasons. They might make the Warhound have the exact same stats as the Goliath does, but if they just brought back the Goliath people might ask why wasn't it used in WoL. Maybe they have a nice campaign for HotS^^
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
This.
More specifically, SC2 is incredibly well balanced. That said, it still has some fundamental design flaws, and the majority of them are units that make the game very generic and boring (Colossus, Roach, Marauder). Unfortunately, the SC2 developers refuse to suck up their pride and at least take some inspiration from BW units and make new units/tweak units to make the game more interesting. It seems like they are insulted by constant comparisons from BW so they want to make SC2 completely different and try to make it better than BW to give themselves an ego boost, regardless of the consequences.
Man I swear that line annoys me, but what annoys me more is the epic failure that is Kennigit every time he says that. I want to scream at him each time ASK A DECENT FOLLOW UP.
I'll give three right now in case someone every get the chance to interview the DB.
1) What people are talking about is the specific micro situations that are needed in BW. Pathing can stay the same, but specifically designing in things like carrier micro can revitalize a unit without changing the pathing of the overall game.
2) Deathballs are indeed easier to make in SC2 but what about designing less units that only require an attack move, like the colossus, and more units that need to be microed properly, like the marine.
2a) Don't you think that the colossus is simply bad from both a gameplay and a spectator experience? Why do you feel a need to attack move units at all in an esport?
3) Ignoring pathing altogether, do you feel fights happen too quickly? The ability to retreat from a poor engagement is limited, do you think something as simply as slowing down the game speed might be a worthwhile choice to help with this?
I mean I know he's aware of a lot of these issues but I think he's just not looking at enough options with enough urgency.
On June 17 2012 01:51 Azzur wrote: I agree with Dustin Browder's stance - if you want BW units, go play BW. It is already theoretically possible to make BW units in the SC2 editor - if there's demand for it, it would've already happened.
the units in HotS essentially mimic their BW counterparts, but are not their bw counterparts. viper for example (dark swam, consume). so why do we still have old units like templar, hydra, etc, but not the rest of the units?
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
Hm who would've known that the whole blizzard dev team is actually comprised of one person.
I said specifically said "and his goons". Please read before you write next time.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Would they really get flamed for bringing exact copies? I mean look at dota 2, it is exactly the same as dota 1, just better graphics, nobody is flaming them for lack of creativity.
Dota 2 is not a sequel, It's a standalone version of DotA. LoL and HoN are like the Sc2s of Dota.
The BW units don't fit into the style of game SC2 is. The lurker for instance, would be incredibly hard to balance as a splash damage unit because there's very little squad tactics in SC2 compared to BW so splash hits the most of the army. Likewise goliaths would only really matter in TvT because of how SC2 air is balanced.
I'd love to see the game become more like BW but SC2 is just designed to take that kind of gameplay out of the equation.
It seems silly from blizzard not to, i mean look at the Raven most useless unit in the game and the least used. They should just give up and bring the science vessel which was a much better unit that would help terrans with mutas <.< but NO too proud to admit defeat that the raven sucks. Goliath like the OP said should also be in, good counter vs mutas and air units in general plus goes decently with mech.
I wouldn't mind seeing the reaver back but i can see that unit being tough to kill for zerg and protoss with current units, protoss would just keep the reaver at the back of the ball of death and would be difficult to focus fire. Colossus is much easier unit to deal with and easy to operate for the sc2 noobs i suppose . Besides that I dont really have any complains about swarm host and what not, the viper it's basically a flying defiler so people dont let it die so easily.
On June 17 2012 02:06 SarcasmMonster wrote: Adding BW replicas is not the only way to add meaningful units...
It's not the units but its the gameplay. Seriously I'm an SC2 guy, I have absolutely no attachment to BW, but I go back and see those games or watch PL and you can see the design flaws in SC2 if you just look with your eyes open.
And you don't need to go back to horrible pathing to fix these things, a lot of them can be specifically designed into the game.
Idea:
What if carriers specifically built in carrier micro back into them? i.e. the interceptors keep attacking the target for half a second (or whatever time, balance it) after the carrier is given the move command. Is there any reason this can't be done?? Just DB.
On June 17 2012 01:51 Azzur wrote: I agree with Dustin Browder's stance - if you want BW units, go play BW. It is already theoretically possible to make BW units in the SC2 editor - if there's demand for it, it would've already happened.
the units in HotS essentially mimic their BW counterparts, but are not their bw counterparts. viper for example (dark swam, consume). so why do we still have old units like templar, hydra, etc, but not the rest of the units?
What about the fact that it flies?
The fact that abduct is a completely new skill?
The fact that its cloud ability works in very different ways (only affects bio, reduces range but allows them to deal damage)?
The fact that its "consume" also works in fundamentally different way, since you need to be in your own base to use it?
It's ridiculous how people are resorting to such exaggerations to make a point. Same with the warhound, its a mech walker so it must be the same thing as a goliath, right?
I wonder how story-wise it pans out that the Zerg or any other race would suddenly stop building much more successful older units like the Lurker or Scourges.
The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
If you listen to a lot of Browder's interviews he actually gave a lot of sideways answers to your question.
The main things that have stopped them from bringing them back is linked to the effectiveness, their desire for a linear design path, and their need for regulated succession of tech opportunities without causing overlap.
For example, let us take the Lurker. (Everyone's fave go to unit when talking about this)
Browder's team wants Zerg to have weak early game AA
What does this mean?
Zerglings, Roaches, and Banelings don't shoot up. Crawlers and Queens are stuck on creep.
The Hydralisk at hatch tech would break that race design preference by being a mobile anti-air unit during the early game.
Browder's team also wants for tech progression to be linear with fancier stuff being "up a notch" in tech.
So hatch tech gets you Roaches, Zerglings, and Banelings while lair tech gets you Hydras, Infestors, and Mutalisks.
The Hydras have to be Lair tech to give zerg a weak early game AA. So it would seam weird and non-linear to have Hydralisks AND Lurkers be available at the same tech--Lair Tech. So, much like Overseer and the Broodlord, the only logical place to put Lurkers would be Hive tech.
What did this cause?
I remember David Kim saying that it made the Lurker too weak in their testing. Why?
Because hive tech does not normally come until way deep into the game. The Lurker could no longer play the role people wanted it to play because at Hive tech, the Lurker was already the Unit lurkers would stall the game to get to.
In BW, Lurkers allowed you to be safe as you teched hard to defilers. Once you had Defilers and extra gas bases you were able to start pushing back. With the Lurker at Hive tech--it would turn from a defensive siege weapon with offensive capabilities based on timing attacks into a cloaked Hydralisk.
So why isn't the Lurker in the game?
Because of the combination of two philosophies that shoved the Lurker too high up the tech tree.
Is it easy to fix? Yes, technically, but it would a restructuring of the game.
Roaches and Hydralisks switch spots. Queen loses her AA ability becoming a purely melee unit while Hydralisks are slowed down even more off creep. (About the same speed as the queen off creep would suffice)
Lair tech would then lead to our first overlap issue. Roaches and Lurkers seems to both take up the "burrowed combat unit" slot at the same tech juncture. How do you resolve it?
You give us back the old roach and make the lurker move slow off creep (about as fast as the Hydralisk is now)
3 range, 2 armor, and 1 supply.
This creates a dynamic choice in unit composition and tactical space control.
Roaches would be really good at moving out into the map to do hit and runs. At lair tech they come late enough that marauders and Immortals will be online in time. The roaches will be a lot weaker (forcefields actually forcefields roaches) marines would actually be able to kite roaches, etc... but there will be more of them.
Lurkers would be slow units that you use to hold key positions At hydra Speed you're more likely to be keeping them where you are spreading creep while needing drop tech to actually be able to harass with them.
Why don't they do this? That I can't tell you. But I do know why they don't have the Lurker. At least, what I believe their reasons to be based off of how they talk about unit design in their interviews.
It isn't important that we have our own logical reasons for having certain units "back," what you need to figure out is why it is that Browder and his team reached the conclusion they did. They will never listen to your logic of "It would be cooler" or "In BW it was like _____" because at the end of the day those types of arguments and reasonings are subjective. Hech, I could complain that Command and Conquer was way more fun than BW and that we should bring in MORE a-move units like the collossus/mammoth tank.
Try thinking about things from Browder and his team's mindset, then see if there is a better way to present your case based on what it is that they're trying to do.
Personally? I reserve judgement on unit design and unit choices for when Void comes out. We already know that the release of the expansion will not only add units, but it has the options to remove units and completely redesign them as well. Once the Beta is over the release of HotS will show how much they are willing to change their game from expansion to expansion in an attempt to reach a certain level of perfection. We have at least one more reset coming after HotS, I'd rather wait for that before I whine about Protoss not really having a dynamic spellcaster outside of the Sentry...
On June 17 2012 02:13 R3DT1D3 wrote: The BW units don't fit into the style of game SC2 is. The lurker for instance, would be incredibly hard to balance as a splash damage unit because there's very little squad tactics in SC2 compared to BW so splash hits the most of the army. Likewise goliaths would only really matter in TvT because of how SC2 air is balanced.
I'd love to see the game become more like BW but SC2 is just designed to take that kind of gameplay out of the equation.
Ironically in every interview they just love to tell you how much they want to reintroduce 'squad' tactics, encouraging protoss/terran to spread their supply around the map more.
The only real design that removes broodwar-esque gameplay is the fact that units are able to clump unbelieveably tight. The ease of controlling units only piles onto that problem. In every engagement most if not all of the units are attacking at once, making marines/hydralisks unbelieveably powerful and melee units like zerglings/zealots have limited efficiency in poor engagements. AoE is way more cost efficient than it should be, resulting in nerfs to the tank, removal of the lurker and, for more reasons than aoe, weak T1 protoss units. The same overly efficient units like Hydralisk and Marine get murdered by AoE.
On June 17 2012 02:21 corumjhaelen wrote: The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
Disruption web - nothing can attack in it Blinding cloud - range reduced to 1. Zerglings, ultras, broodlings unaffected. Locusts slightly affected (since they only have 2 range to begin with)
On June 17 2012 02:21 corumjhaelen wrote: The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
Disruption web - nothing can attack in it Blinding cloud - range reduced to 1. Zerglings, ultras, broodlings unaffected. Locusts slightly affected (since they only have 2 range to begin with)
Yes, I said it's "pretty much" disruption web. Very different from dark swarm. In less good. I somehow have doubts it will be seen really often.
On June 17 2012 01:51 Azzur wrote: I agree with Dustin Browder's stance - if you want BW units, go play BW. It is already theoretically possible to make BW units in the SC2 editor - if there's demand for it, it would've already happened.
the units in HotS essentially mimic their BW counterparts, but are not their bw counterparts. viper for example (dark swam, consume). so why do we still have old units like templar, hydra, etc, but not the rest of the units?
What about the fact that it flies?
The fact that abduct is a completely new skill?
The fact that its cloud ability works in very different ways (only affects bio, reduces range but allows them to deal damage)?
The fact that its "consume" also works in fundamentally different way, since you need to be in your own base to use it?
It's ridiculous how people are resorting to such exaggerations to make a point. Same with the warhound, its a mech walker so it must be the same thing as a goliath, right?
lol you don't know? When it comes out of factory, if it rolls, it's a tank micmic, if it's 4 wheel, it's vulture micmic, if it's walk on 2 leges, it's goliath. SIlly blizzard, should have made war hound to walk on 4 legs, Terran need a unit like that.
On June 17 2012 02:21 corumjhaelen wrote: The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
It is very similar but not quite the same, remember the corsair ability would disable units inside of it AND structures like turrets/spores/sunken/bunkers etc so it was good to take care of static defence and forced people to move out of it if they could, which is just like the blind thing the viper has. But i dont think it affects buildings.
They don't want to admit their own mistakes they've made so they're trying to fix it. I wish they'd let the game settle itself though and balance less often, but its up to them.
On June 17 2012 02:21 corumjhaelen wrote: The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
Disruption web - nothing can attack in it Blinding cloud - range reduced to 1. Zerglings, ultras, broodlings unaffected. Locusts slightly affected (since they only have 2 range to begin with)
Yes, I said it's "pretty much" disruption web. Very different from dark swarm. In less good. I somehow have doubts it will be seen really often.
As long as you know the difference. I thought the difference is more than "pretty much disruption web" because the strategy around the spell is very different since composition is much more important with the Viper spell.
On June 17 2012 02:21 corumjhaelen wrote: The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
Noone cares how you feel when your reading this thread.
On June 17 2012 01:51 Azzur wrote: I agree with Dustin Browder's stance - if you want BW units, go play BW. It is already theoretically possible to make BW units in the SC2 editor - if there's demand for it, it would've already happened.
the units in HotS essentially mimic their BW counterparts, but are not their bw counterparts. viper for example (dark swam, consume). so why do we still have old units like templar, hydra, etc, but not the rest of the units?
What about the fact that it flies?
The fact that abduct is a completely new skill?
The fact that its cloud ability works in very different ways (only affects bio, reduces range but allows them to deal damage)?
The fact that its "consume" also works in fundamentally different way, since you need to be in your own base to use it?
It's ridiculous how people are resorting to such exaggerations to make a point. Same with the warhound, its a mech walker so it must be the same thing as a goliath, right?
lol you don't know? When it comes out of factory, if it rolls, it's a tank micmic, if it's 4 wheel, it's vulture micmic, if it's walk on 2 leges, it's goliath. SIlly blizzard, should have made war hound to walk on 4 legs, Terran need a unit like that.
The sad part is that making it 4-legged and not resemble goliaths probably would've reduced the amount of complaints by a lot.
On June 17 2012 02:21 corumjhaelen wrote: The subject of the thread is interesting and all, but I'd just like to state that the Viper's ability has nothing to do with Dark Swarm. In fact, it's pretty much disruption web which was on the corsair. If people could stop making that comparison I'd feel much better reading this.
It is very similar but not quite the same, remember the corsair ability would disable units inside of it AND structures like turrets/spores/sunken/bunkers etc so it was good to take care of static defence and forced people to move out of it if they could, which is just like the blind thing the viper has. But i dont think it affects buildings.
It really isn't similar to either dark swarm OR disruption web...
On June 17 2012 02:13 R3DT1D3 wrote: The BW units don't fit into the style of game SC2 is. The lurker for instance, would be incredibly hard to balance as a splash damage unit because there's very little squad tactics in SC2 compared to BW so splash hits the most of the army. Likewise goliaths would only really matter in TvT because of how SC2 air is balanced.
I'd love to see the game become more like BW but SC2 is just designed to take that kind of gameplay out of the equation.
Browder said something like this in his gamespot interview. Specifically he said that the old units from BW were really hard to balance because they *had* to have a certain look and feel to them. Psionic storm was the example he used but it applies to a lot of the BW units.
Off Topic, I find the whole pathing thing to be deliciously ironic. Pathing is kind of a challenging/computationally complex problem in general and RTS pathing where lots of little units all have to run around and get from point a to point b in an intelligent fashion is even tougher. Getting pathing from BW to where it is in SC2 must have taken a lot of work.
Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
Or you could actually spread out your marines and units. It separates good players from great players. Same goes for the Baneling. They are negated by great micro and play. The same goes for the Lurker.
having had a look at the new units introduced in HotS, I'm really curious about one thing:
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?
Take for instance the War Hound:
When first it was announced, it seemed to have an Anti-Air missile and operated very much like the Goliath. Back then I was kind of puzzled by how they did not just bring back the Goliath, with the awesome sound any animation of their Anti-Air rockets.
Also strange seems the Swarm Host.
People asked for the Lurker, people got the Lurker. Well, kind of. A burrowed siege unit that can be used to break fortified positions? Alright, but why give Zerg a unit that's so shockingly similar to the Brood Lord instead of the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?
I am now die hard Broodwar fan, only having heard from it once SC2 was out, only having played ~50 games vs. the computer, only having a very vague idea about how units work. So please don't crucify me if I got something wrong.
What do you think?
Probably mainly because this is SC2 not SC. If they wanted to make the same game with better graphics they could have easily done that. They wanted to make a new game, that's what they did.
I'm not too worried about it, BW will always be around, and people will always make BW units with the custom editor sooo..
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
Let's not turn the game into WarCraft 3 where everything is automated.
On June 17 2012 02:13 R3DT1D3 wrote: The BW units don't fit into the style of game SC2 is. The lurker for instance, would be incredibly hard to balance as a splash damage unit because there's very little squad tactics in SC2 compared to BW so splash hits the most of the army. Likewise goliaths would only really matter in TvT because of how SC2 air is balanced.
I'd love to see the game become more like BW but SC2 is just designed to take that kind of gameplay out of the equation.
Browder said something like this in his gamespot interview. Specifically he said that the old units from BW were really hard to balance because they *had* to have a certain look and feel to them. Psionic storm was the example he used but it applies to a lot of the BW units.
Off Topic, I find the whole pathing thing to be deliciously ironic. Pathing is kind of a challenging/computationally complex problem in general and RTS pathing where lots of little units all have to run around and get from point a to point b in an intelligent fashion is even tougher. Getting pathing from BW to where it is in SC2 must have taken a lot of work.
Remember that ur talking about the guys who keep on saying "the technologuy is not there yet" when otheres have that "technology"...so dont take mr Browder worlds too seriously.
About the whole "bring back BW units" i think its not that ppl want sc bw in 3d, its that new units we got are just...boring (roach, marauder, colosus, coruptor). If starcraft 2 introduced some other, more interesting ideas (not like it didnt introduce any) we wouldnt probably even talk about units that much and focus our complains on something else, like LAN (cuz we always have to complain).
Because they want to make the game their own creative beast; if they just copied Brood War, why even make a new game? And they are "taking hints" from Brood War, look at the Widow mine (spider mine), and look at the Swarm host--they may not be perfect at the moment, but they have huge potential to be awesome, to be new, and to breathe some life into the game. The Brood War units were cool, but why not give these new ones a chance? Why not take the risk to have something potentially awesome?
Even from the testing now, we are seeing more variety; you compared the swarm host to the brood lord--yet I remember beta testers saying that Hydralisks, with their speed upgrade (also from Brood War) were great in combination with these new units--the Brood Lord never did that; not to mention the Swarm host is available much earlier, allowing for many different types of pushes and aggression by Zerg. The Swarm Host gives Zerg a "cloaking threat" as well.
I could say stuff about the others, but I think you get my point, these units have potential; why not see how it plays out?
On June 17 2012 01:06 Solidarity wrote: I mean, I loved Brood War, and I'm glad many of the units and mechanics of the game are in this one, but why are we clamoring for units that we've used time and again in a game released almost 15 years ago? I'm not interested in still using the Lurker or Goliath. It would just come off as laziness to bring back a bunch of old units.
You could say the same thing about the tank >.> or a bunch of other units.
I don't want BW units, I want good units. If they end up being BW units I don't mind it, but keep in mind that SC2 is an extremely different game still, so adding the exact same units may not work out as well as making up new ones. I do think though that blizzard's creativity is lacking a bit.
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
That would make the game so much easier.
Having them clump less would extend the engagements instead of having everything melt in seconds. Prolonged engagements, more reliance on spacing, more focus on unit control to overcome size deficits are all noble goals.
Those are inherent engine problems though, and its difficult to imagine how to can overcome them no matter what units they put in.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
This reply seems the most logical to me. Kind of a shame. I, personally, would be one of the people that would not mind BW units being brought back. The lack of creativity doesn't really bother me.
Its not you as much as it is the popular gaming media. If they were to do that, everyone in the BW forums of this site would have rejoiced most likely, but then what would be the point of the game? they could just play brood war instead, it would be like CS:source, a game that is literally the same as the original with some minor tweaks that failed hard because people didn't like the new system. The fact is that the new layout and design has brought many new fans, SC2 is much larger than BW ever was in the foreign field really, if it had just been the same game over again, there would be far fewer new fans, just the old crowd all over again.
having had a look at the new units introduced in HotS, I'm really curious about one thing:
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?
Take for instance the War Hound:
When first it was announced, it seemed to have an Anti-Air missile and operated very much like the Goliath. Back then I was kind of puzzled by how they did not just bring back the Goliath, with the awesome sound any animation of their Anti-Air rockets.
Also strange seems the Swarm Host.
People asked for the Lurker, people got the Lurker. Well, kind of. A burrowed siege unit that can be used to break fortified positions? Alright, but why give Zerg a unit that's so shockingly similar to the Brood Lord instead of the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?
I am now die hard Broodwar fan, only having heard from it once SC2 was out, only having played ~50 games vs. the computer, only having a very vague idea about how units work. So please don't crucify me if I got something wrong.
What do you think?
Probably mainly because this is SC2 not SC. If they wanted to make the same game with better graphics they could have easily done that. They wanted to make a new game, that's what they did.
I'm not too worried about it, BW will always be around, and people will always make BW units with the custom editor sooo..
I think you, and a lot of people, are missing the point of this thread. OP is saying that blizz are reluctant to bring back the true bw units themselves despite many of the new units sharing a lot of their features and resemblances. Each of the new units borrows many things from a specific bw unit.
This is in contrast to blizzard's WoL units (that arent exact copies ofc like lings, marines etc), such as colo, roach, marauder, sentry, reaper, corrupter, raven, thor etc etc that don't share similarities to bw units. Only units from WoL that have a similar bw counter part are stalkers and broodlords, at least that i can think of.
The question is then, if you're are basically taken the same idea why not just make it the same as the original unit altogether?
You should not have to fight an engine. an engine should be doing exactly what you say it to do. In broodwar you had the magic box which counted for everything basically. If you wanted your units to be spread, they would stay spread. If you wanted your units to clump up, you had to give them the order to clump up. Units doing what you want them to do, is too much asked from sc2, where your units ALWAYS clump up.
So you have to be active about spreading your units? You had to do that in brood war anyways. You just spread your units and give a new move command? Too bad, we're clumped up again. In brood war however, they wouldn't clump up, unless you want them too. I guess this also has to do with the faster game pace, ridiculous aoe/firepower of collussus and with the fact that you can select your entire army in one control group. But I blame the lack of collision size/clumping up a lot more. And also the gliding physics (units being able to push others around) removes the ability to precisely control your army. And the lack of moving shot for mutalisks and other air units is so goddamn hateable. (also ground units).
/rant
edit: also if the speed of the fights get reduced and clumping up gets reduced (power of aoe), the better player with better micro is more likely to win because the longer a fight goes on, the more good decisions the more experienced player can make.
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
If one of the things that tells great BW players apart from good is stacking, then in SC2 is the splitting the army manually.
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
That would make the game so much easier.
Having them clump less would extend the engagements instead of having everything melt in seconds. Prolonged engagements, more reliance on spacing, more focus on unit control to overcome size deficits are all noble goals.
Those are inherent engine problems though, and its difficult to imagine how to can overcome them no matter what units they put in.
On June 17 2012 03:13 wcr.4fun wrote: You should not have to fight an engine. an engine should be doing exactly what you say it to do. In broodwar you had the magic box which counted for everything basically. If you wanted your units to be spread, they would stay spread. If you wanted your units to clump up, you had to give them the order to clump up. Units doing what you want them to do, is too much asked from sc2, where your units ALWAYS clump up.
So you have to be active about spreading your units? You had to do that in brood war anyways. You just spread your units and give a new move command? Too bad, we're clumped up again. In brood war however, they wouldn't clump up, unless you want them too. I guess this also has to do with the faster game pace, ridiculous aoe/firepower of collussus and with the fact that you can select your entire army in one control group. But I blame the lack of collision size/clumping up a lot more. And also the gliding physics (units being able to push others around) removes the ability to precisely control your army. And the lack of moving shot for mutalisks and other air units is so goddamn hateable. (also ground units).
/rant
edit: also if the speed of the fights get reduced and clumping up gets reduced (power of aoe), the better player with better micro is more likely to win because the longer a fight goes on, the more good decisions the more experienced player can make.
You start with this line as your premise, then use BW as your ideal... if anything, the BW engine is a bigger fight.
Edit: People are still making Goliath <-> Warhound comparisions, are you that stubborn
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
If one of the things that tells great BW players apart from good is stacking, then in SC2 is the splitting the army manually.
It's like... players would be rewarded better if they used more control groups....
It's like... if people just practiced harder instead of whined longer, there wouldn't be a problem....
having had a look at the new units introduced in HotS, I'm really curious about one thing:
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?
Take for instance the War Hound:
When first it was announced, it seemed to have an Anti-Air missile and operated very much like the Goliath. Back then I was kind of puzzled by how they did not just bring back the Goliath, with the awesome sound any animation of their Anti-Air rockets.
Also strange seems the Swarm Host.
People asked for the Lurker, people got the Lurker. Well, kind of. A burrowed siege unit that can be used to break fortified positions? Alright, but why give Zerg a unit that's so shockingly similar to the Brood Lord instead of the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?
I am now die hard Broodwar fan, only having heard from it once SC2 was out, only having played ~50 games vs. the computer, only having a very vague idea about how units work. So please don't crucify me if I got something wrong.
What do you think?
Probably mainly because this is SC2 not SC. If they wanted to make the same game with better graphics they could have easily done that. They wanted to make a new game, that's what they did.
I'm not too worried about it, BW will always be around, and people will always make BW units with the custom editor sooo..
I think you, and a lot of people, are missing the point of this thread. OP is saying that blizz are reluctant to bring back the true bw units themselves despite many of the new units sharing a lot of their features and resemblances. Each of the new units borrows many things from a specific bw unit.
This is in contrast to blizzard's WoL units (that arent exact copies ofc like lings, marines etc), such as colo, roach, marauder, sentry, reaper, corrupter, raven, thor etc etc that don't share similarities to bw units. Only units from WoL that have a similar bw counter part are stalkers and broodlords, at least that i can think of.
The question is then, if you're are basically taken the same idea why not just make it the same as the original unit altogether?
Because the game is supposed to be called Starcrat 2: Heart of the Swarm, and not Starcraft: Brood War?
It's what jalstar said in the first page, Blizz can't make the game with units solely or majority from BW and expected to sell. Right now, many people in the mainstream (players who are not bother with Multiplayer that much) is already thinking SC2 as an outdated game (still has resource collection, base building, etc.) so Blizz can't possibly risk make the perception of the game even worse. And those players base might be bigger than the numbers of TL users too. You can't make a game that would not sell.
So they has to come to the middle ground. Make units that would preferably fill the gap of the game by looking at BW as inspiration/idea, yet not exactly copy it.
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
Do we actually know what level these internal testers are? I doubt any of them have a fragment of the control MKP has -- let alone the mechanics of MKP's macro. I really hope to be proven wrong and told they're pro level.
They've learned their mistake with the carrier. people need to stop reminiscing about BW realise that SC2 is a different game. with the current game I dont see many BW units making it through being viable anymore. as much as I liked the units or whatever i won't work.
having had a look at the new units introduced in HotS, I'm really curious about one thing:
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?
Take for instance the War Hound:
When first it was announced, it seemed to have an Anti-Air missile and operated very much like the Goliath. Back then I was kind of puzzled by how they did not just bring back the Goliath, with the awesome sound any animation of their Anti-Air rockets.
Also strange seems the Swarm Host.
People asked for the Lurker, people got the Lurker. Well, kind of. A burrowed siege unit that can be used to break fortified positions? Alright, but why give Zerg a unit that's so shockingly similar to the Brood Lord instead of the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?
I am now die hard Broodwar fan, only having heard from it once SC2 was out, only having played ~50 games vs. the computer, only having a very vague idea about how units work. So please don't crucify me if I got something wrong.
What do you think?
Probably mainly because this is SC2 not SC. If they wanted to make the same game with better graphics they could have easily done that. They wanted to make a new game, that's what they did.
I'm not too worried about it, BW will always be around, and people will always make BW units with the custom editor sooo..
I think you, and a lot of people, are missing the point of this thread. OP is saying that blizz are reluctant to bring back the true bw units themselves despite many of the new units sharing a lot of their features and resemblances. Each of the new units borrows many things from a specific bw unit.
This is in contrast to blizzard's WoL units (that arent exact copies ofc like lings, marines etc), such as colo, roach, marauder, sentry, reaper, corrupter, raven, thor etc etc that don't share similarities to bw units. Only units from WoL that have a similar bw counter part are stalkers and broodlords, at least that i can think of.
The question is then, if you're are basically taken the same idea why not just make it the same as the original unit altogether?
Because the game is supposed to be called Starcrat 2: Heart of the Swarm, and not Starcraft: Brood War?
It's what jalstar said in the first page, Blizz can't make the game with units solely or majority from BW and expected to sell. Right now, many people in the mainstream (players who are not bother with Multiplayer that much) is already thinking SC2 as an outdated game (still has resource collection, base building, etc.) so Blizz can't possibly risk make the perception of the game even worse. And those players base might be bigger than the numbers of TL users too. You can't make a game that would not sell.
So they has to come to the middle ground. Make units that would preferably fill the gap of the game by looking at BW as inspiration/idea, yet not exactly copy it.
Well yeah this is exactly what i was getting at. But it's only a middle ground from the marketing perspective of blizzard and not from people that actually play the game and want more competitive merits out of it instead of just novelty.
To be honest, I'd rather see new units than inferior combinations of old ones. However, the old ones have some fundamental things that I love that I'd love to see in SC2 that would make it better.
On June 17 2012 03:23 AsymptoticClimax wrote: They've learned their mistake with the carrier. people need to stop reminiscing about BW realise that SC2 is a different game. with the current game I dont see many BW units making it through being viable anymore. as much as I liked the units or whatever i won't work.
Yes, the carrier taught them a valuable lesson indeed: give up instantly without even trying. I never played bw for the record and alas do not have a nostalgic attachment to the bw carrier.
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
this post made my brain hurt so bad
It's not bad that this red alert guy trying to copy BW units, If in the end makes the game entertaining and not 1a, I'm fine with any units
i wouldn't mind if they bring back the lurker, i mean you scan and a group of marauders will plow through them. They removed the units that wouldn't work or that would work to good and put in new units. Best thing they can do, to not get called a remake with better graphics.
Actually almost every ability/unit from bw went into sc2. They just moved it to another race and made it more fitting to the race etc.
So its not a reluctance, its more like its already in the game, unless its total waste.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game.
He's worried about his job and his success as a developer.
But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good.
I would love exact copies of BW units, but their review scores would tank. Even WoL was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like BW.
Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game.
It's better to make new units specific to SC2 than to try and pigeon-hole in old BW units just for fan-service.
What if the warhound did the same thing as of now but had the goliath model? No one would be happy because that's not how the goliath was in BW. It makes much more sense to have a new unit.
The lurker? We've been there, done that, right? Why re-balance it for SC2 when something as awesome as the Swarm Host can be put in the game?
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game.
He's worried about his job and his success as a developer.
But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good.
I would love exact copies of BW units, but their review scores would tank. Even WoL was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like BW.
Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game.
yeah i mean its not like the most successful gaming title in the world does that every year. *cough*cod*cough*
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
Let's not turn the game into WarCraft 3 where everything is automated.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game.
He's worried about his job and his success as a developer.
But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good.
I would love exact copies of BW units, but their review scores would tank. Even WoL was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like BW.
Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game.
yeah i mean its not like the most successful gaming title in the world does that every year. *cough*cod*cough*
Sadly, what is fair and what is real doesnt always align ;_;
On June 17 2012 02:40 Azriel wrote: Pretty sure they took out the lurker because it ripped the tester's Terran balls to shreds. And thus its replacement the swarm host gets no AOE in order to remain balanced.
This game would be more interesting with automatic formation spreading or something similar.
Let's not turn the game into WarCraft 3 where everything is automated.
You never played mass talons against orc ...
Of course I did! DotT was my favourite unit, haha.
Sadly, what is fair and what is real doesnt always align ;_;
Doesn't matter because you've got to realize that it's the vast minority who is posting on these forums. Blizzard will cater to the majority, as any other right-minded company would, and the majority is not posting on TL, I'm afraid. (:
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
This reply seems the most logical to me. Kind of a shame. I, personally, would be one of the people that would not mind BW units being brought back. The lack of creativity doesn't really bother me.
Its not you as much as it is the popular gaming media. If they were to do that, everyone in the BW forums of this site would have rejoiced most likely, but then what would be the point of the game? they could just play brood war instead, it would be like CS:source, a game that is literally the same as the original with some minor tweaks that failed hard because people didn't like the new system. The fact is that the new layout and design has brought many new fans, SC2 is much larger than BW ever was in the foreign field really, if it had just been the same game over again, there would be far fewer new fans, just the old crowd all over again.
1 From a commercial point of view, Source didn't really fail. It sold a good amount of copies. 2 The differences from 1.6 to source are not "minor tweaks". It's similar in that there are two teams, a money system with weapons to buy and objectives. If you think it only has "some minor tweaks" then COD is a lot like counter strike right ? Two teams, you gotta kill ennemies, and you have objectives ...
Source failed on a competitive level because it simply isn't good enough. It's a clear downgrade competition wise. It's even more casual oriented than cs 1.6. It did have a competitive scene, but it never got half as big as the 1.6 one. Also VERYGAMES was raping everyone.
The fact that SC2 has more people than BW has little to do with the "new / different " units, it has everything to do with marketing and simply people not being aware of the existence of the game. Nowadays you have tons and tons of medias and ways to advertise and sell your game, things that did not exist back then, you can EASILY reach out to far more people than you could 15 years ago. Also gaming as a whole has become much much much much much more accepted socially. I don't think the reaper, a unit with bad design that serves almost no purpose, brought many players. I don't think the thor, who also suffers from bad design 1a expensive unit that has OMGBIGASSGUNSANDCANONSONIT brought many players.
Point is, BW design is superior in many ways, but dustin browder says "THIS ISNT BW IF U WANT TO PLAY BW GO PLAY BW" and basically shits on the 15 years of starcraft. A good example of this is when the starcraft 2 team comes out in an interview and says " OH HEY WE NEVER EXPECTED FOR TERRANS TO MICRO MARINES AGAINST BANELINGS, ( EVEN THO THEY HAVE BEEN SPLITTING MEDIC MARINES VS LURKERS AND USING D MATRIX ON A MARINE STIMMED FORWARD TO TAKE OUT LURKERS ) "
On June 17 2012 01:26 Torte de Lini wrote: The new units are suppose to be similar imitations to what BW had. Oracle to Arbiter, Viper to Defiler, Swarm Host -> Lurker.
They all are meant to fit similar roles, just reinvented to both be new and attractive to StarCraft 2 without detracting the creativity and uniqueness of BW units.
On June 17 2012 01:26 Torte de Lini wrote: The new units are suppose to be similar imitations to what BW had. Oracle to Arbiter, Viper to Defiler, Swarm Host -> Lurker.
They all are meant to fit similar roles, just reinvented to both be new and attractive to StarCraft 2 without detracting the creativity and uniqueness of BW units.
On June 17 2012 01:13 Johnzee wrote: Flightan and jalstar are right, game developers want to explore new options to make a new game. It's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that Starcraft II is NOT Brood War... and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
You can go back to BW for inspiration and a model for balance, but only to a point. Again, SC2 isn't Brood War, and many of the intricacies of BW "balance" is based on every other unit, upgrade, and metagame functions such as game speed, player view, unit control, etc. To balance or fundamentally change and aspect of the game requires messing with another aspect of the game.
For example, Suppose we wanted to bring back Zerg Scourge. Well, that would probably screw up the way Terran armies work right now, with their healing units up in the air. So to balance that we might consider adding some sustain for the Terrans on the ground, say, the old Medics. They get built of out the Barracks, logically, but if we do that then they'll be available earlier, which means the game is imbalanced again... and so it goes. The only solution we know is to simply copy Brood War, because it seems like it works well, but then SC2 wouldn't be much of SC2.
To say that BW has all the solutions to SC2's supposed "problems" is a misguided notion and has been spending a bit too much time looking at that game through the rose-colored glasses.
I like your answer the best. Makes sense to me.
I think the strength SC2 is going for is the strength of a new game. I know some FPS players will hate me for this really terrible comparison, but every new Halo iteration is just Halo again. A little changed, but still Halo. Starcraft 2 keeps the races from Brood war, but with a different idea entirely. It makes for a better, new game that is actually justified in being bought because there is no game like it.
Also, you might as well add to the OP "why don't immortals just become dragoons? Why don't hellions become vultures and battle mode become firebats?"
Yeah I always found it odd in starcraft 2 they said lurker had no role when people complained it was missing so then in expansion they put in a dumber version of a lurker. Nothing they do makes any real sense and they even contradict themselves. Im glad I dont play this game competitively because the balance is a mess.
the main problem I see is that the BW units might not work as functioned as they were in bw. Never really got into BW but since the mechanics and units are quite different (hard counter etc), their roles are affected, the difference in strength in a deathball situation is different.
I would prefer some new units that are specifically designated for SC2 to combat some of the issues/strengthen the strong points
Sometime people in this community are quite stupid if you ask me. They think just adding BW units to current SC2 and it will work without even thinking about it. I don't need BW units but I need good unit. BW units are not always good for SC2. Swarmhost works really different from Lurker. Widow mine and Spider mine are not the same too. BW had so many flaws just like SC2. It's not some perfect game that you should copy everything from it. If SC2 is basically the same as BW we wouldn'thave TvT with mech vs bio which is like 2 different races playing each other like we have now and many things that are better than BW . SC2 is not BW. It has its good and bad. We have to move forward. I welcome BW units bck into SC2 but if they are needed not because some nostalgic reason.
Swarm host (locusts) can apparently attack air, so that's pretty different from a lurker or brood lord. Lurker is also AoE unlike Swarm host.
Warhounds are weird, I'll agree with that. I don't understand the whole viking, thor, warhound [,goliath] thing. They're all humanoid/mech units, and they can all attack both air and ground. Certainly they have major differences, but they still seem to overlap.
Warhounds supposedly have anti-armored missiles or something? don't marauders and vikings do that job well?
On June 17 2012 03:37 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game.
This is almost never the case when it comes to consumer spending. In fact I would argue that people would be more willing to spend money on familiar items than novel ones. Look at movies, some of the more successful movies are sequels, prequels, or reboots. This isn't because Hollywood is uncreative, it is because people are less reluctant to spend money on something they don't know will be good or not. Some companies or studios will take chances and create something successful and other times they will fail, most will rehash the same thing year after year because it sells.
Take video games for example. Call of Duty and Battlefield series, no major changes have occurred in the BF series for at least 10 years. Yet the game is successful. Call of Duty is the same thing year after year and highly successful. Angry Birds continues to make millions. Blizzard would of made money regardless of the outcome of SC2. Game reviewers would of given it perfect scores as they did, because they are paid to and any one who said otherwise would be denounced as a "hater." People bought SC2 not because it was something "new" and "ground breaking," but it was similar to brood war and newish.
I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it.
On June 17 2012 03:37 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game.
This is almost never the case when it comes to consumer spending. In fact I would argue that people would be more willing to spend money on familiar items than novel ones. Look at movies, some of the more successful movies are sequels, prequels, or reboots. This isn't because Hollywood is uncreative, it is because people are less reluctant to spend money on something they don't know will be good or not. Some companies or studios will take chances and create something successful and other times they will fail, most will rehash the same thing year after year because it sells.
Take video games for example. Call of Duty and Battlefield series, no major changes have occurred in the BF series for at least 10 years. Yet the game is successful. Call of Duty is the same thing year after year and highly successful. Angry Birds continues to make millions. Blizzard would of made money regardless of the outcome of SC2. Game reviewers would of given it perfect scores as they did, because they are paid to and any one who said otherwise would be denounced as a "hater." People bought SC2 not because it was something "new" and "ground breaking," but it was similar to brood war and newish.
I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it.
On June 17 2012 04:18 TeslasPigeon wrote: I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Wow ok. So the colossus DOESNT die anytime you see lots of vikings etc? The defiler wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? There were no units in BW that were similar!? OH wait there were.
i'd rather have a swarm host than a lurker, this is coming from someone who enjoys BW and SC2, but the lurker just wouldn't work as well in SC2 because we already have infestors/banelings for the AOE and lurkers with their 6 or 7 range would get totally obliterated by maraduers, good blink micro and immortals + any air units or anything with a higher range which includes tanks, colossi... plus scan is easier to get in SC2 and so are observers, so lurkers in general just wouldn't really cut it. The swarm host, because of it spits out units that last 15 seconds, their range is pretty much 2x as long a siege tank which keeps it SAFE, out of harm, whereas the lurker would just get torn up. SH can actually put distance between their targets so enemies have to over extend themselves to pick them off. Also, the SH minions are like pseudo scouts, they are free units that will grant you vision up an opponents ramp without having to sacrifice a zergling.
lurker would have been decent for drop defense but that's the only situation I can think of that a lurker would be good in this game.
On June 17 2012 04:10 snakeeyez wrote: Yeah I always found it odd in starcraft 2 they said lurker had no role when people complained it was missing so then in expansion they put in a dumber version of a lurker. Nothing they do makes any real sense and they even contradict themselves. Im glad I dont play this game competitively because the balance is a mess.
maybe when they made WoL they didn't think to add in the SH? The infestor already covered the lurkers role and is also at lair tech, they WERE overlapping because they both do AOE and both are used against primarily bio units. SH is an entirely unit altogether.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
The answer^^ sums it up in a nutshell regardless of what anyone says. This is really the case no matter how you look at it.
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
have you seriously played bw in a competitive way?
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
no, it's the same as the War of the Worlds Tripods...
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
have you seriously played bw in a competitive way?
BW wasn't balanced. Terran has WAY more championships than both the others, various matchups are imbalanced but all had a favorable matchup, and he is right about them balancing things with the maps instead of patch changes(although the them was the players/tournament holders).
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
err yes I definitely was my bad. Meant the defiler -_- Just woke up so kinda zonked
Since the Goliath exists in the single player would it be possible to have a mod that swaps that model for the warhound? That would fix a lot for me. The aesthetics of the HOTS terran units doesn't sit well with me and that was always one of my favorite aspects of Blizzard games, the incredible art design.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever.
Well that would have been good it is actually me failing after being awake for 5 minutes lol I enjoy BW but you are right that i like neither BW nor sc2 elitists
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
nice flame war attempt, but you have no idea, what your talking about
On June 17 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote: Since the Goliath exists in the single player would it be possible to have a mod that swaps that model for the warhound? That would fix a lot for me. The aesthetics of the HOTS terran units doesn't sit well with me and that was always one of my favorite aspects of Blizzard games, the incredible art design.
if you wanted, you could probably replace the thor with a goliath right now, there might be some odd spacing around the thor because the goliath model is much smaller, but it's definitely possible just do some research.
On June 17 2012 04:47 SupLilSon wrote: Since the Goliath exists in the single player would it be possible to have a mod that swaps that model for the warhound? That would fix a lot for me. The aesthetics of the HOTS terran units doesn't sit well with me and that was always one of my favorite aspects of Blizzard games, the incredible art design.
You can swap any model.
I've swapped my Zerglings out with Probes. Pesky bastards!
To put it simply, if Blizzard is going to replace BW units with new units, at least make sure the new units are better than their older counterparts. The problem I've had with SC2 is that many of the new units suck. Almost all of them are mindless 1a units, several aren't even used (reaper, raven), and very few have introduced any kind of interesting micro in the game. When you look at SC2 matchups, most of the entertainment comes from BW units such as the tank and the marine. Take the baneling for example, probably the most popular SC2 unit, yet what really made banelings loved was the fact that they forced terran players to micro their marines, and marine micro is where the real excitement comes from.
I'd say the infester was pretty well designed, but something really needs to be done about the colossus, marauder, and roach. Mindless 1a units need to be cut down on, not expanded. I don't want the warhound to be another marauder.
On June 17 2012 03:37 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game.
This is almost never the case when it comes to consumer spending. In fact I would argue that people would be more willing to spend money on familiar items than novel ones. Look at movies, some of the more successful movies are sequels, prequels, or reboots. This isn't because Hollywood is uncreative, it is because people are less reluctant to spend money on something they don't know will be good or not. Some companies or studios will take chances and create something successful and other times they will fail, most will rehash the same thing year after year because it sells.
Take video games for example. Call of Duty and Battlefield series, no major changes have occurred in the BF series for at least 10 years. Yet the game is successful. Call of Duty is the same thing year after year and highly successful. Angry Birds continues to make millions. Blizzard would of made money regardless of the outcome of SC2. Game reviewers would of given it perfect scores as they did, because they are paid to and any one who said otherwise would be denounced as a "hater." People bought SC2 not because it was something "new" and "ground breaking," but it was similar to brood war and newish.
I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it.
You can't compare games to movies. I am going to see the new Batman movie not because its similar to part 1. The main character is the same but they aren't going to go over how batman became batman in part 3. No need for backstory and thats just one example.
Call of Duty and Battlefield had no major changes because people like the multiplayer so they don't want to do anything drastic. Wait people love starcraft 2 multiplayer so they don't want to do anything to drastic.
We are talking guns and grenades and kill streaks. 1 bad unit in starcraft can really change the entire game. In the end the guns are just skins change the accuracy, recoil, etc the way you balance 1 gun in CoD is pretty much how you would balance all the guns.
You don't balance the hydralisk the same as you do a Marauder. Or a Zergling the same as you do Void ray.
In Cod and BF everyone has access to pretty much the same equipment. Its not like player 2 gets the BFG and nobody on the battlefield has access to it.
Well I can't really speak for the Goliath, but there's a lot of good balance reasons Zerg isn't getting another splash damage unit to mix with Banelings, Infestors and Ultralisks.
Not that I wouldn't trade Banelings for Lurkers any day of the week but that's just kind of how it is.
On June 17 2012 04:10 snakeeyez wrote: Yeah I always found it odd in starcraft 2 they said lurker had no role when people complained it was missing so then in expansion they put in a dumber version of a lurker. Nothing they do makes any real sense and they even contradict themselves. Im glad I dont play this game competitively because the balance is a mess.
they didn't say the lurker had no role, they said it overlapped with the baneling (which is very true). The swarm host is not a dumber version of the lurker, it is an entirely different unit with a different role. People see a unit that only attacks when burrowed, but the unit will play out extremely differently than the lurker. It isn't even meant to do the same thing. Lurkers are at their best in burst AOEing down groups of units. This unit will be at its best in long drawn out engagements. Balance is a mess? Check out tourney and ladder results, which suggest otherwise.
Look, I don't mind people criticizing SC2. The game has flaws to be sure. Don't spout bullshit just because you don't like the game, though. Your post, along with many others, is filled with exaggeration, hyperbole, and straight up lies. I'm also glad you don't play the game competitively, but for different reasons.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Wow ok. So the colossus DOESNT die anytime you see lots of vikings etc? The defiler wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? There were no units in BW that were similar!? OH wait there were.
The Defiler created interesting, dynamic gameplay. The Colossus/Roach/Marauder do not, and this is an incredibly basic and obvious difference between the two.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
To add to this, broodwar units with our current ui would actually be hell incarnate for some things. And secondly, in today's community where people expect blizzard to be involved and patching and attentive, there are some units that just don't work well.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Wow ok. So the colossus DOESNT die anytime you see lots of vikings etc? The defiler wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? There were no units in BW that were similar!? OH wait there were.
The Defiler created interesting, dynamic gameplay. The Colossus/Roach/Marauder do not, and this is an incredibly basic and obvious difference between the two.
Great argument there. Oh you edited out the insult before I managed to quote you. Fun. Did the marine make for interesting dynamic gameplay? Funny because its very similar to the marine. There were many units that I would argue were in BW that did not make for interesting gameplay. Many of them were only game changes because their control was so god awful(Dragoons).
There's no reason to add in the warhound's anti-air anymore, as they kept the Thor in the game for anti-muta, and the Viking is good against pretty much everything else. Not to mention the marine's pretty good too
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Wow ok. So the colossus DOESNT die anytime you see lots of vikings etc? The defiler wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? There were no units in BW that were similar!? OH wait there were.
The Defiler created interesting, dynamic gameplay. The Colossus/Roach/Marauder do not, and this is an incredibly basic and obvious difference between the two.
The Defiler was a caster, I don't really feel it's fair to compare it to basic units like those. If you want to compare the Defiler to anything it would have to be with the Infestor.
A better argument would be to compare the Collosus to the Reaver (The Reaver required constant babysitting and micro to be effective but was a fun unit to watch as a spectator) the Marauder to the Firebat (different units with different roles, but essentially equally compelling) and the Roach to the tier 1 Hydralisk (which functions very similarly to the Hydralisk in brood war except that it lacks anti-air but has burrow regeneration and movement mechanics at lair tech.)
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Wow ok. So the colossus DOESNT die anytime you see lots of vikings etc? The defiler wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? There were no units in BW that were similar!? OH wait there were.
The Defiler created interesting, dynamic gameplay. The Colossus/Roach/Marauder do not, and this is an incredibly basic and obvious difference between the two.
The Defiler was a caster, I don't really feel it's fair to compare it to basic units like those. If you want to compare the Defiler to anything it would have to be with the Infestor.
A better argument would be to compare the Collosus to the Reaver (The Reaver required constant babysitting and micro to be effective but was a fun unit to watch as a spectator) the Marauder to the Firebat (different units with different roles, but essentially equally compelling) and the Roach to the tier 1 Hydralisk (which functions very similarly to the Hydralisk in brood war except that it lacks anti-air but has burrow regeneration and movement mechanics at lair tech.)
Yah fair enough but I was only arguing the point that some units will always be built because they are a mainstay for that race. But yah your point is well taken
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
have you seriously played bw in a competitive way?
BW wasn't balanced. Terran has WAY more championships than both the others, various matchups are imbalanced but all had a favorable matchup, and he is right about them balancing things with the maps instead of patch changes(although the them was the players/tournament holders).
terran winning more championships has a lot more to do with the map pools than race balance. The only exception is Flash.
I swear, BW elitists think they're so much better than anyone who even looks at SC2 and doesn't barf. They hide in the BW section, waiting for anyone to say "Wait, SC2 isn't that bad," and then start screaming for the banhammer, but they can come into here and start lamenting how shitty SC2 is and when SC2 players get frustrated, they just say "Lol wut, you have a bad game." I just wanna bang my head against the wall.
SC2 doesn't bring back every single god damned BW unit want back because *it's not BW.* Someone quoted Browder on the first page, you should heed his advice. Go play BW if you think it's a better game, because it's a great game. But making threads on TL or posting snippy bullshit every few weeks about how bad SC2 is isn't going to help you any.
They've brought back the basic Starcraft units, and they're bringing back others in reimagined ways. No one will tell you that the Swarm Host isn't a reimagined version of the Lurker. And that's great, because I didn't buy SC2 for BW with better graphics. I bought it for SC2, which Browder is giving me.
I swear. If they gave you BW elitists your units you wouldn't say "Now THIS is a great game!" you'd say "Lolol, lazy Blizzard just giving us BW with better graphics. Can't fool me." They can't fool you, and you can't fool us.
I'm sorry BW is dying. I really am. Seems like a great game that had a great run, some great games, and some great memories. But that doesn't mean you should come over and start trying to enforce your will on the SC2 forums like it's some enlightened Will of the Gods that we lowly mortals just can't accept, then start flaming our favorite game and Blizzard when we don't agree. It just gets everyone riled up, which doesn't help anyone.
On June 17 2012 04:10 snakeeyez wrote: Yeah I always found it odd in starcraft 2 they said lurker had no role when people complained it was missing so then in expansion they put in a dumber version of a lurker. Nothing they do makes any real sense and they even contradict themselves. Im glad I dont play this game competitively because the balance is a mess.
Initial Thoughts: Wow. Just wow. Locusts are good. While playing Celebreth we found out that not only do they have minor range but they also can hit air. This is an insanely good unit at this stage in the game. Coupled with support of any kind the constant pressure that these Swarm Hosts can put on is impressive. This definitely opens up an aggressive playstyle for Zerg that did not exist before. I daresay it is actually a little too strong...
On June 17 2012 03:23 AsymptoticClimax wrote: They've learned their mistake with the carrier. people need to stop reminiscing about BW realise that SC2 is a different game. with the current game I dont see many BW units making it through being viable anymore. as much as I liked the units or whatever i won't work.
Yes, the carrier taught them a valuable lesson indeed: give up instantly without even trying. I never played bw for the record and alas do not have a nostalgic attachment to the bw carrier.
I thought someone might say something like that. Originally the carrier was going to be cut out but because so many people requested it to stay and blizzard kept it in WoL even though it's role doesn't fit directly in WoL. I'd rather see blizzard try something original and take what the fans want with a pinch of minerals because those who speak out are usually the minority although we're seeing the tempest which seems a little funky and I love it. im zerg so we will see how long that statement holds true XD but for now it's cool.. It's different. and what we're seeing is Blizzard going 50/50 on the units and compromising with the fans to blizzards needs like the viper/swarmhost/oracle etc which im okay with. as long as they are designed for sc2 thats fine. unlike the carrier you see.
I apologize for referencing Day9, but I think what a lot of posters are saying here is similar to what he said.
He made a comparison from SC2 to BW with throwing a Ball to throwing a Frisbee. With throwing a ball, you can throw underhand, overhand, curveball, fastball, etc, but in the end it's always going to go in one direction. However, there's a lot more you can do with a Frisbee.
SC2 as a whole feels like a game where it's more about a combination of units compared to BW, where it's about getting the most out of one or a small patch of units. The potential of the SC2 units are far less than the potential of the BW units. I'd say the only units that are exempt from this are the Marine, Stalker, and Infestor. Every other unit is "What you see, is what you get".
This is why I harped on the counter system that SC2 has, because SC2 has to rely on that. The Marauder and Colossus are the biggest culprits of this, while the Roach is to a lesser extent. It's also why Terrans are extremely annoyed with the Warhound, because it's seemingly a very specific unit with little potential.
On June 17 2012 03:23 AsymptoticClimax wrote: They've learned their mistake with the carrier. people need to stop reminiscing about BW realise that SC2 is a different game. with the current game I dont see many BW units making it through being viable anymore. as much as I liked the units or whatever i won't work.
Yes, the carrier taught them a valuable lesson indeed: give up instantly without even trying. I never played bw for the record and alas do not have a nostalgic attachment to the bw carrier.
I thought someone might say something like that. Originally the carrier was going to be cut out but because so many people requested it to stay and blizzard kept it in WoL even though it's role doesn't fit directly in WoL. I'd rather see blizzard try something original and take what the fans want with a pinch of minerals because those who speak out are usually the minority although we're seeing the tempest which seems a little funky and I love it. im zerg so we will see how long that statement holds true XD but for now it's cool.. It's different. and what we're seeing is Blizzard going 50/50 on the units and compromising with the fans to blizzards needs like the viper/swarmhost/oracle etc which im okay with. as long as they are designed for sc2 thats fine. unlike the carrier you see.
The Carrier is a bit of an interesting case.
On the one hand I do in fact understand where Browder is coming from with his comments about it in recent interviews, and I do have somewhat of a nostalgic attachment to it because of Brood War much more so than I do with units like the Vulture, Wraith, Scout, Corsair or Devourer that are also not in SC2 simply because it IS such an iconic unit.
But my opinion of why it isnt utilized more in SC2 has more to do with the fact that Stargate tech in GENERAL is underutilized for Protoss, and I think with the introduction of the Oracle and Tempest if the developers decided to leave the Carrier in, I feel it would mesh very well with the new stargate units as a sort of tanky air unit that has interceptors to draw fire away from the other units.
You could tweak it to even better fit that role as sort of an aerial tank.
I really feel with the Carrier that there is hope for the unit and I think one of the main reasons it's so underutilized is just a lack of options in the Stargate as it exists in WoL. Solving that problem like they already have in HOTS I feel is great progress towards making the Carrier relevant again.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever.
Devourer had it's use . It was one of the counters to the Corsairs/Carriers and BCs . Also in ZvZ it is was useful if the other player sticks to mutas for to long it was good at tanking damage and slowing the atack speed of the enemy flying units and it did decent damage . Devourers were used in the July vs Reach Gillete OSL finals and it is a valid counter to sair/reaver in to mass air protoss strategy . The only useless unit in BW was the scout which is only good againsts Carrier and BCs , but players almost never used them vs P . But depending on the map and circumstance they were still used as a tool to gain victory . Kal stoped ForGG's 2 factory push with scouts , also Bisu used scouts against Much 1 base carrier on Plasma .
Even Carrier has it's use in SC2 , but pros are still too inexperienced at using them . Carriers could still be good in late games vs zerg with combination with other units , also vs Terrans who goes mech . Mech is also one of the example of being underused but viable in all MUs . Just , because the pros don't use them now doesn't mean they are not viable .
In BW it took decades for a certain unit to find it's use . Like the queen - Ensnare is good against Bio just like fungal growth and spawn broodling is like the only efficient counter to late game terran mech .
SC2 players are so spoiled it's not even funny . Something is hard to use , they don't use it and stick to what it's easy and then when even that what it's easy becomes figured out they cry imbalance . When you cry imbalance Blizzard nerfs . Sometimes they are right sometimes they are wrong . When they are wrong the gameplay suffers from it . Dustin Browder will remove the carrier , but in HOTS when mech will become the standart vs P army i would rather have the carrier then the Tempest or voidray to counter it lategame .
The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
On June 17 2012 05:04 Mauldo wrote: I swear. If they gave you BW elitists your units you wouldn't say "Now THIS is a great game!" you'd say "Lolol, lazy Blizzard just giving us BW with better graphics. Can't fool me." They can't fool you, and you can't fool us.
It'd certainly stop people from saying "I can't watch BW, the graphics are too ugly." at the least. That'd be something.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game.
He's worried about his job and his success as a developer.
But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good.
I would love exact copies of BW units, but their review scores would tank. Even WoL was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like BW.
I was confused the first time I saw someone play Starcraft 2 and the game still started off with a single command center and a handful of workers that you had to set mining before any buildings could be built. I expected that they would have changed up the BW/W3 paradigm by now and made the first couple minutes of the game more interesting... but they didn't.
The problem isn't that they need to be copying BW units and they're not. The problem is they're designing units that aren't as good in design as the BW units were... but I've got enough confidence in Blizz for them to get to that point after two expansions
On June 17 2012 05:15 Noobity wrote: The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
That locusts from the swarm host can hit AIR, that right there makes it different than the lurker imo completely. It can serve somewhat the role the lurker served in BW but hitting AIR is totally another dynamic that the lurker can't speak to.
@HeroMystic I think the banshee could somewhat be in that category of high potential and game long usefulness unit with no specific counter. and with HoTS coming out The viper, swarm host and oracle seem to be the biggest units that are more general purpose. so I do think blizzard heading the right direction with units but then one could argue about the tempest and warhound :/
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote: But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
You'd fall flat on your face trying to get any old school players because you're making an entirely different game from SC at that point. Might as well stay away from the SC IP if you don't want to add onto it instead of reinventing it into something completely new. Browder might as well put in the better broodwar units and just do what's best for the game and not himself. In the end the units like the lurker added more to the game and made it play better, which is what matters most.
On June 17 2012 05:12 HeroMystic wrote: I apologize for referencing Day9, but I think what a lot of posters are saying here is similar to what he said.
He made a comparison from SC2 to BW with throwing a Ball to throwing a Frisbee. With throwing a ball, you can throw underhand, overhand, curveball, fastball, etc, but in the end it's always going to go in one direction. However, there's a lot more you can do with a Frisbee.
SC2 as a whole feels like a game where it's more about a combination of units compared to BW, where it's about getting the most out of one or a small patch of units. The potential of the SC2 units are far less than the potential of the BW units. I'd say the only units that are exempt from this are the Marine, Stalker, and Infestor. Every other unit is "What you see, is what you get".
This is why I harped on the counter system that SC2 has, because SC2 has to rely on that. The Marauder and Colossus are the biggest culprits of this, while the Roach is to a lesser extent. It's also why Terrans are extremely annoyed with the Warhound, because it's seemingly a very specific unit with little potential.
I actually think most Terrans are upset because the Warhound is just another Marauder that can be built from the Factory. It's all around just too powerful and doesn't fulfill an individual niche at all.
As far as the BW vs. SC2 units go, just remember that the Battle-hellion is just another Firebat that can be built from the Factory, and the Widow Mine is just another Spider Mine that can be built from the Factory (without building Vultures first). The Arbiter is seen as one-half Mothership and one-half Oracle, the Lurker is seen in the Swarm Host and the Defiler is seen in the Viper, which makes the whole thing just feels like BW 2 with a few different abilities and animations thrown in.
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote: But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!).
Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated.
On June 17 2012 05:29 toiletCAT wrote: I'm sorry, but if you don't like the game, then don't play it. I love this game, and it's great. <3
What if you like the game, but loved BW and want to love this game, but it's not quite good enough. Then what do you do?
BTW I'm talking about spectating. SC2 is great for me to play, but spectating is not the same as BW, not as exciting.
You can't have everything, I'm afraid. If Blizzard won't approve of your idea of "a better StarCraft 2", then that's not how it's going to be.
StarCraft: "uhhh, yea, let's make an RTS that takes place in space, we have, uhh, three races, and, uhh, some units.. and, uh.. Yeah, it'll be cool." ===> "Okay, so, uhh, the game turned out pretty popular... so, uhh, I guess we have to balance it." ===> Brood War.
StarCraft 2: Dustin B.: "ALRIGHT U GUISE, WE GOTTA MAKE THE SEQUAL. ALRIGHT, WE'LL WRITE E-SPORTS ALL OVER IT. BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE A NEW ENGINE, CUZ IT'S 2010 GUYS. ALSO, MAYBE SOME NEW UNITS, YEAH? WE'LL SWAP OUT SOME OLD ONES AND MAYBE ADD THEM IN SOME EXPANSION SO WE CAN MAKE SOME EXTRA DOSH!!!!!!."
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote: But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!).
Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated.
true, but guaranteed that ice frog and valve add in new heroes that weren't in dota on WC3, GUARANTEED. Why? Because why not? They want people to buy the game, adding in new characters would give a better reason to buy the game. If I wanted a WC3 dota experience, I could just go play WC3 dota, or Hon, or LoL. What seperates Dota2 from the rest? you NEED to separate yourself and sometimes that means taking risks like adding in new characters or adding in new mechanics that people might not like. Valve might have the advantage for not having to change anything because... they are valve... and steam is the best platform by FAR, but I won't buy Dota2 if I can play LoL for free unless there is something really special about it.
The same thing can be applied to SC2, no one wants to play the same game twice, because that game already exists, people have been playing it for 10+ years. HotS is going to offer enough things that will make BW players happy but at the same time will be a completely different game and will make it worth buying.
Maybe new shiny things don't attract you to buy a game but for developers? Adding in new things is like the holy bible for creating video games, it's inevitable, unavoidable and frankly, a good thing.
It seems like the HotS preview has brought renewed vigor to those who enjoy bitching about SC2.
SC2 is a completely different game. I don't know where people have gotten the notion that a game's sequel must be in all respects like its predecessor.
On June 17 2012 05:15 Noobity wrote: The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
As an aside, I want to point out what a lot of people aren't getting; the Lurker didn't just do AoE damage/rip apart Marines. The Lurker gave very valuable map control by doing AoE damage while burrowed. I fear that the Swarm Host won't be able to do this. Their "attack" merely spawns a fairly slow, visible unit that can be insta-gibbed by a group of Marines, whereas three Lurkers could hold a ramp against a small group of Marines that were trying to come in and snipe a Hatchery.
It seems like the HotS preview has brought renewed vigor to those who enjoy bitching about SC2.
SC2 is a completely different game. I don't know where people have gotten the notion that a game's sequel must be in all respects like its predecessor.
We don't, and if you would read the thread, you might understand that.
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote: But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!).
Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated.
true, but guaranteed that ice frog and valve add in new heroes that weren't in dota on WC3, GUARANTEED. Why? Because why not? They want people to buy the game, adding in new characters would give a better reason to buy the game. If I wanted a WC3 dota experience, I could just go play WC3 dota, or Hon, or LoL. What seperates Dota2 from the rest? you NEED to separate yourself and sometimes that means taking risks like adding in new characters or adding in new mechanics that people might not like.
The same thing can be applied to SC2, no one wants to play the same game twice, because that game already exists, people have been playing it for 10+ years. HotS is going to offer enough things that will make BW players happy but at the same time will be a completely different game and will make it worth buying.
Maybe new shiny things don't attract you to buy a game but for developers? Adding in new things is like the holy bible for creating video games, it's inevitable, unavoidable and frankly, a good thing.
The problem is that you assume that 100% of the people buying the sequal are people who have all played the original and are tired of it. Those are two major, and both faulty, assumptions to make for a variety of reasons.
For one, 10 years is enough for there to be another whole new generation of gamers, most of whom have probably never played or even heard of Starcraft. Mario games have changed very little, yet are still very successful because the formula works, and it manages to attract enough new blood who have never tried the game before. Yes, people will get bored of the formula, but the incredibly high sales show that these people are in the minority, and companies shouldn't retool a successful franchise to cater to people who probably won't buy the game anyway since they're sick of the IP.
Dota2 for example never had a problem with lack of new content. Look at any Dota community, and they'll tell you that the problems with the game were due to engine limitations, not due to the gameplay being outdated. The game is still immensely popular in both western and eastern countries, especially China. Dota2 will be popular not due to adding new heroes, but because it will add the online features that players have always wished for, in addition to the game being free-to-play. It won't fail due to keeping the gameplay the same because I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people have never played a Dota game before, so it will be 100% new to them.
And besides, both the gaming and movie industries have proven a thousand times over that people are perfectly fine with sequels changing little from the original. There's a reason why most movies today are sequels/reimaginings, and why the most successful games are CoD sequels.
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote: But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!).
Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated.
true, but guaranteed that ice frog and valve add in new heroes that weren't in dota on WC3, GUARANTEED. Why? Because why not? They want people to buy the game, adding in new characters would give a better reason to buy the game. If I wanted a WC3 dota experience, I could just go play WC3 dota, or Hon, or LoL. What seperates Dota2 from the rest? you NEED to separate yourself and sometimes that means taking risks like adding in new characters or adding in new mechanics that people might not like. Valve might have the advantage for not having to change anything because... they are valve... and steam is the best platform by FAR, but I won't buy Dota2 if I can play LoL for free unless there is something really special about it.
The same thing can be applied to SC2, no one wants to play the same game twice, because that game already exists, people have been playing it for 10+ years. HotS is going to offer enough things that will make BW players happy but at the same time will be a completely different game and will make it worth buying.
Maybe new shiny things don't attract you to buy a game but for developers? Adding in new things is like the holy bible for creating video games, it's inevitable, unavoidable and frankly, a good thing.
AFAIK Dota 2 is going to be free to play. So basically it is the almost perfect, one and only, original and authentic Dota feeling with better GUI, graphics and functionality. And even if it was a game I had to pay for, I would still do so, because I know what I get and that I will not regret buying it - because it is Dota 1.
I am not saying here SC2 should be the same as SC:BW, but the reason why Dota2 is going to be a success is that Valve doesn't really change anything. Never change a running system, I guess.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever.
long zvz games, and in zvp if protoss goes carriers after corsair reaver, they are a must to deal with carriers and corsairs
On June 17 2012 06:08 NaEjeOn88 wrote: Bring back bw? that is the dumbest topic i have ever seen on the subject of sc2. THIS IS A NEW GAME PPL GET OVER IT!!
it would be really easy to get over it if sc2 didnt rape bw and kill it aftereards
On June 17 2012 06:08 NaEjeOn88 wrote: Bring back bw? that is the dumbest topic i have ever seen on the subject of sc2. THIS IS A NEW GAME PPL GET OVER IT!!
it would be really easy to get over it if sc2 didnt rape bw and kill it aftereards
On June 17 2012 06:08 NaEjeOn88 wrote: Bring back bw? that is the dumbest topic i have ever seen on the subject of sc2. THIS IS A NEW GAME PPL GET OVER IT!!
it would be really easy to get over it if sc2 didnt rape bw and kill it aftereards
Opinions.
i think its closer to a fact that sc2 killed broodwar
On June 17 2012 06:08 NaEjeOn88 wrote: Bring back bw? that is the dumbest topic i have ever seen on the subject of sc2. THIS IS A NEW GAME PPL GET OVER IT!!
it would be really easy to get over it if sc2 didnt rape bw and kill it aftereards
Opinions.
i think its closer to a fact that sc2 killed broodwar
Not really. It was obviously a combination of many things that "killed" BW.
Just because the pros are moving on to SC2, doesn't mean SC2 alone caused the switch. Its just the most logical follow-up plan for them.
On June 17 2012 06:08 NaEjeOn88 wrote: Bring back bw? that is the dumbest topic i have ever seen on the subject of sc2. THIS IS A NEW GAME PPL GET OVER IT!!
it would be really easy to get over it if sc2 didnt rape bw and kill it aftereards
Opinions.
i think its closer to a fact that sc2 killed broodwar
Not really. It was obviously a combination of many things that "killed" BW.
Just because the pros are moving on to SC2, doesn't mean SC2 alone caused the switch. Its just the most logical follow-up plan for them.
yeah i guess youre right on that. its just that it killed the foreign interest.. whatever interest there was. it was the nail in the proverbial coffin
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!?
what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit.
it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever.
long zvz games, and in zvp if protoss goes carriers after corsair reaver, they are a must to deal with carriers and corsairs
I think every unit in BW did have at least a limited use, plus it's interesting to have units that are rarely used. I never got out of D/D+ on ICCup but the units that I probably saw least were Dark Archons and Devourers. But even with those, you could use Dark Archons to Mind Control something like a BC or an enemy worker to make enemy units. It's just that that almost never happened in real games, but it's exciting when it does.
Here's my question to the OP and people that agree with it, if the SC2 developers introduce units that mimic BW units in their functionality but essentially look different, why is that a bad thing?
The War Hound seems like it might work in terms of game play/balance because it functions like a Goliath, sure, but to me if it works, it works. I imagine they imitate but not copy for creative reasons.
Regardless, IMO the solution isn't introducing strict copies of BW units, because not all of those units would make sense in SC2. All of the units that came to SC2 directly from BW have had to be tweaked afaik. In BW, the Siege Tank did 70 base damage in Siege Mode--in SC2 it does 35. I think the reason for that is units were much more spread out in BW, so splash damage wasn't as large a factor. Take the Viper from HOTS, that makes sense to me because you can't just introduce BW's Defiler with Plague as is, it would wreck Terran.
Firts, Team Liquid is basically Starcraft Broodwar heaven, the only(?) one in the non korean community. The replies like "i just want BW-remake" are obvious, but TL is a drop in the ocean. Most people do not want same thing, SC2 needs to be different enought to please mainstream, since BW is long dead in the west.
Second, the world has moved, SC2 has to move from BW-esque interface. If anything SC2 interface is way to conservative. The games with global zoom are there from basically 2006(SupCom, SC:Forged alliance, SupCom2, ex), there is no reason Blizard could not implement it. Makes multitasking much easier. Also long building ques, cycling of building que, sure useless for pros, but the silver-gold players could have plenty of use.
Third, for developers remake is always bad longterm, since they loose the auditory interested in innovation, and gain even more conservative fanbase, making the progress in the future even harder to ramm down the troats, destroying the company in the long term.
Introducing BW units is: Loss(for company`s inside development, copying is lack of progres and waisted time) Loss in reputation from the outsiders point of wiev since company that is just making remaiks, and not making something new is bad one, and surely decliningone. Loss in the clients that did not like BW for some reason.
The only win comes from BW rooted fans, that will not play SC2 unless it is mostly similar to BW, but their numbers are very few, and the number of people that are close-minded enought to outright regect SC2 is even smaller, so the gain from pleasing them is almost nonexistent. Their woice can be loud on TL, but pretty much nowere else.
On June 17 2012 06:32 naastyOne wrote: Most people do not want same thing
The continuing success of games like Mario and Call of Duty would disagree with you.
A basically single player game that has done different things in the 3d space?
A FPS shooter where every player has access to the same weapons and kill streaks?
only comparison would be Starcraft Campain =/= mario. That doesnt work
CoD multiplayer =/= Starcraft multiplayer cause Zerg doesn't get banshee's or colossus. So that doesnt work either.
When a gun is balanced in CoD or added to the next game me, myself and irene have access to those changes anytime we play multiplayer. If i play terran, and irene plays toss then yea you get the picture I'm sure.
On June 17 2012 06:32 naastyOne wrote: Most people do not want same thing
The continuing success of games like Mario and Call of Duty would disagree with you.
A basically single player game that has done different things in the 3d space?
A FPS shooter where every player has access to the same weapons and kill streaks?
only comparison would be Starcraft Campain =/= mario. That doesnt work
CoD multiplayer =/= Starcraft multiplayer cause Zerg doesn't get banshee's or colossus. So that doesnt work either.
No comparison
it was saying that mario and cod are doing successful things by changing as little as possible which is quite true and people keep buying the games and that they're unchanging thus trying to prove a point to the other person.......... Not comparing sc2 to cod or mario.........
On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Are you kidding me? this is just not true, all of those except maybe the roach require a lot of micro to use effectively. For gods sake the infestor is a spellcaster, it is purely microbased. And they are quite often a bad idea to build. Also all of these have clear weaknesses, for gods sake half of them cant even shoot up!
On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Are you kidding me? this is just not true, all of those except maybe the roach require a lot of micro to use effectively. For gods sake the infestor is a spellcaster, it is purely microbased. And they are quite often a bad idea to build. Also all of these have clear weaknesses, for gods sake half of them cant even shoot up!
fungal reduces micro though, infestor takes micro but if you hit anything they're stuck which reduces the amount of micro in the game because the opponent can't do anything about it, its the same argument for concussive and force fields.
On June 17 2012 06:32 naastyOne wrote: Most people do not want same thing
The continuing success of games like Mario and Call of Duty would disagree with you.
A basically single player game that has done different things in the 3d space?
A FPS shooter where every player has access to the same weapons and kill streaks?
only comparison would be Starcraft Campain =/= mario. That doesnt work
CoD multiplayer =/= Starcraft multiplayer cause Zerg doesn't get banshee's or colossus. So that doesnt work either.
No comparison
it was saying that mario and cod are doing successful things by changing as little as possible which is quite true and people keep buying the games and that they're unchanging thus trying to prove a point to the other person.......... Not comparing sc2 to cod or mario.........
I know what it was saying it just makes no sense. You could say the same about Madden or your yearly sports game update. You know how many people are tired of Madden adding 1 new feature every year. Its just a roster update basically. It sells cause well its the only NFL sim game on the market.
Also CoD is developed by 2 different studios so every other year it is kind of different. An example is sniping in a Treyarch Cod is different than Sniping in a Infinity Ward game.
On the outside looking in they look the same but anyone who plays alot of CoD knows the difference between a CoD and Treyarch game. I will never buy a Treyarch CoD cause I don't like how they approach multiplayer. I will definitely buy a Infinity ward CoD. Also Infinity Ward CoD's usually sell more than Treyarch Cods. MW2 was best selling game of all time, Black Ops 1 beat that, MW3 beat that.
They both have call of duty on the title but Treyarch updates their game mostly based on feedback from their previous installment 2 years ago. Same with Infinity ward MW3 is an update to MW2 not Black Ops.
afaik, sc2 was decreasing rapidly # wise, both in stream views, MLG cast #s, etc. (which they havent posted for a while now, presumably bc they leveled off pretty dramatically or even fell excepting LoL, which would be awful given they just got a VC infusion.)
basically the only things contributing to the organic growth of SC2 were the long awaited influx of BW players. and an expansion, that many are already prophesizing to be a large disappointment.
once those are gone, then what?
idk, my guess is blizz loses focus on sc2, and moves on to Titan, and sc2 stagnates for a while.
there's no way sc2 enjoys the same success BW had, and the longevity it enjoyed.
idk if its browder, or kim, or the design team, or whomever. but this game just doesn't look or feel at all like something that i'd want to play for 15 years straight.
In the end the players are what turns a game of Starcraft into something magical. Blizzard should not create a remake of Broodwar, but create a new game that allows players to create amazing games out of (mostly) their own skill. If this is only possible through putting old Broodwar units back into the game so be it.
I just want SC2 to be a game that is as good as Broodwar from a gameplay perspective, but looks nicer and is better to control. I fear that Blizzard is not able to achieve the gameplay part.
I don't think Blizzard will get things right with Heart of the Swarm, but there is still Legacy of the Void to look forward to and to hope they come up with units that are designed better than the roach or the colossus (or the tempest)...
On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Are you kidding me? this is just not true, all of those except maybe the roach require a lot of micro to use effectively. For gods sake the infestor is a spellcaster, it is purely microbased. And they are quite often a bad idea to build. Also all of these have clear weaknesses, for gods sake half of them cant even shoot up!
fungal reduces micro though, infestor takes micro but if you hit anything they're stuck which reduces the amount of micro in the game because the opponent can't do anything about it, its the same argument for concussive and force fields.
I wonder why they don't just make fungal it a heavy slow. It would still make surrounds and baneling hits easier or allow ultralisks to close in but would not leave the opponent totally helpless. As for forcefields, aren't forcefields just in the game so the colossus can work in the game (as well as giving protoss a way to survive early game, of course)?
On June 17 2012 06:32 naastyOne wrote: Most people do not want same thing
The continuing success of games like Mario and Call of Duty would disagree with you.
A basically single player game that has done different things in the 3d space?
A FPS shooter where every player has access to the same weapons and kill streaks?
only comparison would be Starcraft Campain =/= mario. That doesnt work
CoD multiplayer =/= Starcraft multiplayer cause Zerg doesn't get banshee's or colossus. So that doesnt work either.
No comparison
it was saying that mario and cod are doing successful things by changing as little as possible which is quite true and people keep buying the games and that they're unchanging thus trying to prove a point to the other person.......... Not comparing sc2 to cod or mario.........
I know what it was saying it just makes no sense. You could say the same about Madden or your yearly sports game update. You know how many people are tired of Madden adding 1 new feature every year. Its just a roster update basically. It sells cause well its the only NFL sim game on the market.
Also CoD is developed by 2 different studios so every other year it is kind of different. An example is sniping in a Treyarch Cod is different than Sniping in a Infinity Ward game.
On the outside looking in they look the same but anyone who plays alot of CoD knows the difference between a CoD and Treyarch game. I will never buy a Treyarch CoD cause I don't like how they approach multiplayer. I will definitely buy a Infinity ward CoD. Also Infinity Ward CoD's usually sell more than Treyarch Cods. MW2 was best selling game of all time, Black Ops 1 beat that, MW3 beat that.
They both have call of duty on the title but Treyarch updates their game mostly based on feedback from their previous installment 2 years ago. Same with Infinity ward MW3 is an update to MW2 not Black Ops.
The games concepts are the exact same. Same gametypes. Same killstreaks. Same game. Mechanics change because of the two companies and you still don't see the point, and they add a few small things. The games are the same. MAdden and yearly sport games sell really well and they're quite unchanging. You're just proving a point that you just tried to argue against...... Sc2 is the only RTS in the market and thusly it sells good as well just like your madden example. I don't even know why I did this post because you just said everything yourself. New units with same rolls is redundant. ____________ on topic: DB already said that they make new units because they can have a bit of a different feel, if they created a stalker and named it a dragoon everyone who watched and played bw would be disapointed. Or the oracle the arbitor, everyone would be " this isn't the arbitor this unit is completely worse." I agree with most of the arguments against the new units that I've read but this is why they do it.
I wish SC2:BW gained more traction as the game people in this thread are complaining about. Seriously - SC2 and SC:BW are too different to simply shove in BW units and it'll magically be OK.
SC2 is a new game, SC2:BW is BW with updated graphics, work on making it more popular if you want a SC:BW facelift
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
User was temp banned for this post.
sorry, negative opinions arent welcome at tl.net, according to mods it adds nothing to the discussion...even though the same thing applies to positive opinions...
id love to know the reasoning why blizz doesnt want to just make the goliath and the lurker. it doesnt make any sense to me not to reintroduce units from bw. the war hound and swarm host are basically old bw units with new names, so to call it something else just doesnt make any sense
I really think the problem is too many bw units in SC2, not too few. To try and take a few units from a set of balanced units and then make up new ones that are totally different, but still just as balanced, just isn't a good idea, the equation just won't add up.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
User was temp banned for this post.
sorry, negative opinions arent welcome at tl.net, according to mods it adds nothing to the discussion...even though the same thing applies to positive opinions...
It's not negative versus positive. It's destructive versus constructive. Making a fool of yourself by calling someone an "old, talentless cancer" isn't constructive, so it's destructive.
On June 17 2012 06:32 naastyOne wrote: Most people do not want same thing
The continuing success of games like Mario and Call of Duty would disagree with you.
A basically single player game that has done different things in the 3d space?
A FPS shooter where every player has access to the same weapons and kill streaks?
only comparison would be Starcraft Campain =/= mario. That doesnt work
CoD multiplayer =/= Starcraft multiplayer cause Zerg doesn't get banshee's or colossus. So that doesnt work either.
No comparison
it was saying that mario and cod are doing successful things by changing as little as possible which is quite true and people keep buying the games and that they're unchanging thus trying to prove a point to the other person.......... Not comparing sc2 to cod or mario.........
I know what it was saying it just makes no sense. You could say the same about Madden or your yearly sports game update. You know how many people are tired of Madden adding 1 new feature every year. Its just a roster update basically. It sells cause well its the only NFL sim game on the market.
Also CoD is developed by 2 different studios so every other year it is kind of different. An example is sniping in a Treyarch Cod is different than Sniping in a Infinity Ward game.
On the outside looking in they look the same but anyone who plays alot of CoD knows the difference between a CoD and Treyarch game. I will never buy a Treyarch CoD cause I don't like how they approach multiplayer. I will definitely buy a Infinity ward CoD. Also Infinity Ward CoD's usually sell more than Treyarch Cods. MW2 was best selling game of all time, Black Ops 1 beat that, MW3 beat that.
They both have call of duty on the title but Treyarch updates their game mostly based on feedback from their previous installment 2 years ago. Same with Infinity ward MW3 is an update to MW2 not Black Ops.
The games concepts are the exact same. Same gametypes. Same killstreaks. Same game. Mechanics change because of the two companies and you still don't see the point, and they add a few small things. The games are the same. MAdden and yearly sport games sell really well and they're quite unchanging. You're just proving a point that you just tried to argue against...... Sc2 is the only RTS in the market and thusly it sells good as well just like your madden example. I don't even know why I did this post because you just said everything yourself. New units with same rolls is redundant. ____________ on topic: DB already said that they make new units because they can have a bit of a different feel, if they created a stalker and named it a dragoon everyone who watched and played bw would be disapointed. Or the oracle the arbitor, everyone would be " this isn't the arbitor this unit is completely worse." I agree with most of the arguments against the new units that I've read but this is why they do it.
So is every FPS. Its just how the genre works. I can draw comparisons to Halo and CoD all day long. Sc2 isn't the only RTS on the market its just has the most popularity.
You can't compare FPS genre to RTS genre because 1 genre lives off of yearly or bi-yearly incremental changes and 1 genre doesn't.
RTS don't come out yearly. Usually a RTS comes out and its played for years after release most definitely more than 1 year before the next installment comes out. My point is you can't compare the games to one another and can't compare the genre's you have to have a totally different business model with a FPS than a RTS.
I guess blizzard should start charging for the new maps everytime they add a new one to ladder and call it a Map Pack.
It's because BW units aren't command and conquery enough for Browder to implement into sc2. He prefers to stick with what he knows best. I just hope the balance of SC2 doesn't continue to suffer as a result.
Just adding BW units wouldn't do a whole lot, they still have to be balanced to SC2. Why can't people just fucking WAIT until HotS is out. Everyone wants SC2 to be like BW, yet the game hasn't been out long enough to become itself yet.
The only problem with SC2 is that people cannot let it be Starcraft 2, people want WoL to be BW with a new engine and graphics, sorry that's not how it works. Especially when you go from a 20th century engine/programming to 21st century. It's like those parents who hate their 2nd son/daughter because he/she doesn't SEEM as good as the first. Let the kid grow up, shut up and simmer down.
Stop living in the past, if you like BW; you play BW, there is NOTHING wrong with Broodwar; so why the hell would you not play it if you complain about SC2? So apparently you want BW with new graphics, and apparently, you cannot have that. I do not want to live in a world where people make games to only update the graphics, oh shit, companies already do; and they suck.
I guess in return to the lurker vs. swarm host, I would say that they are trying to hit as many of their design flaws as possible. Originally zerg wasn't very swarm-esque as day9 has said on multiple occasions and that they really have no way of locking down specific positions. So to add the lock down ability they add the lurker, but that just attacks, to make it so we feel more swarmy, let them spawn free units!
At least that is how I feel they came up with the idea for the swarm host.
I've really enjoyed SC2 in the nearly 2 years its been out on retail. I played SC/BW casually since it was created up until SC2 came out. I think SC1/BW had graphical limitations that kind of pigeonholed the unit design and functionality. With great 3D implementation and a variety of other programming advances the game overall, is different. The "fundamentals" of most SC1/BW units do not transfer to SC2.
After playing SC2 for as long as I have, going back to SC1 makes me realize how much more advanced SC2 is and there is no reason for comparison. It's a totally different game, aside from the name it holds and some of the recognizable units from each race.
HoTS, I feel will provide the same "feel" as WoL, but it will be different and comparisons will be unfair.
The developers are doing a great job making the game interesting. I think the adjustments to balance, removal+addition of maps, the upcoming Arcade, etc.. proves that there is heart behind the game. I paid $60 for SC2 and it has provided countless hours of entertainment. I am not a pro and its not my job, 99.99% of you can say the same, but if you dislike it, quit playing it... you'll come back
If it's too much like BW, people will complain about it and whine that it's just BW in 3D but they're selling it again for cheap money. If they make it original then people complain that it's not BW.
On June 17 2012 07:07 ancientmariner wrote: In the end the players are what turns a game of Starcraft into something magical. Blizzard should not create a remake of Broodwar, but create a new game that allows players to create amazing games out of (mostly) their own skill. If this is only possible through putting old Broodwar units back into the game so be it.
I just want SC2 to be a game that is as good as Broodwar from a gameplay perspective, but looks nicer and is better to control. I fear that Blizzard is not able to achieve the gameplay part.
I don't think Blizzard will get things right with Heart of the Swarm, but there is still Legacy of the Void to look forward to and to hope they come up with units that are designed better than the roach or the colossus (or the tempest)...
On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Are you kidding me? this is just not true, all of those except maybe the roach require a lot of micro to use effectively. For gods sake the infestor is a spellcaster, it is purely microbased. And they are quite often a bad idea to build. Also all of these have clear weaknesses, for gods sake half of them cant even shoot up!
fungal reduces micro though, infestor takes micro but if you hit anything they're stuck which reduces the amount of micro in the game because the opponent can't do anything about it, its the same argument for concussive and force fields.
I wonder why they don't just make fungal it a heavy slow. It would still make surrounds and baneling hits easier or allow ultralisks to close in but would not leave the opponent totally helpless. As for forcefields, aren't forcefields just in the game so the colossus can work in the game (as well as giving protoss a way to survive early game, of course)?
I'm not saying ff or marauder slow or fungal isn't necessary in the current build P NEEDS FF or you die to the things terran/zerg have. Its just the mechanic itself reduces micro because you trap units. Stutter step micro is fun and slow makes kiting much easier for lower level players and probably is why people play terran for the most part, and fungal is just a stupidly good spell. Its just they ruin the game for me because if you get ff'd in a group or vortexed or fungal'd or you make a bad engagement as a toss vs t you lose unnessisary units while you reposition and ect. i mean if fungal wasn't in the game that means vortex wouldn't need to be making pvz endgame quite a bit better imo. ofcourse p would be the stronger race and come out ahead vs blord/other unit composition but isn't that what a protoss army should do vs a zerg army? Idk I can sit here and complain and what not, i just wish that things that reduced the amount of micro weren't in the game.
But they could easily change the game by adding zealot armor upgrades or something for mid/late game and maybe a +1 or 2 range on stalker twilight upgrade and just circumvent sentry all together. that way early game zealots don't destroy the world, and you can get a fairly quick upgrade for them so you can hold off timing attacks without splitting the terran army or needing 3 sentry to ff your wall forever. I really wish they pulled some units for hots instead of just the carrier which they didn't even try to fix at all. So idk.
I've wondered about two changes that would IMO make XvP more interesting: 1) FF would be destructible - would have hitpoints 2) to do splash dmg with colosus you would have to attack again second target explicitly
Second point leads me to even more interesting concept of gesture-like attack, imagine fungal growth affecting only area covered by mouse movement - for current effect you would have to hold RB and make small circle
I might get my head bitten off by BW veterans here (full disclosure: yes, I did own/play BW before SC2 came out...but not a huge amount) but honestly just lifting BW units wouldn't work for SC2.
I'm not say they shouldn't take cues. There are clearly issues in SC2. For example, I'm probably one of the few people who like the Colossus. I like it because positioning is so crucial, which adds another small thing to think about when controlling your army which can improve your engagements significantly. However regardless of that the Colossus is one of the biggest contributors to late game PvT being so damn volatile. If you screw up your Colossi positioning and stalker focus-firing then you die, likewise if the Terran screws up sniping Colossi then they die. Same goes for Ghost/HT where it's whoever hits their AoE first. The matchup is absurdly volatile and can be a little frustrating.
There are definitely lessons to be learned from BW, but just lifting units across isn't going to work. Shoving the Reaver in with this current engine would probably be OP as hell. It's a different engine with different pathing and all works a different way. What I think they need to do is to look at WHY certain units in BW worked and use the essence of that to design new ones for the new engine.
I think the situation is more about them realizing BW just isnt that good of a game by modern standards. Quite frankly BW as a game is a disaster balance wise and has a fundamentally arbitrary type of difficulty. In the end it is the players who made BW great. They took the steaming pile and developed innovative maps which brought the game within striking distance of balance. The players spent years grinding out dull mechanics so they could show us muta stacking and Flash style mech play. This was a huge commitment that we will always remember but let there be no mistake, the only reason BW got such respect is because RTS was such an undeveloped genre.
This all said, they started with an appeal to our nostalgia with the carrier and have since realized that its better to forgo such sentiments in favor of a better game.
I have some high brain activity now, another idea what if carrier had limit only on producing interceptors and could dock infinite amount of interceptors - orphans of other destroyed carriers
Swarm host: the Swarm Host creates small, weak, free units. These are effective for tanking damage, making the Swarm Host useful for putting in the back of pushes and putting infestors or hydralisks behind. They are also effective in absence of any enemy units, making Locusts useful for harass. Swarm Hosts will combine best with Mutas by applying two-pronged pressure, since the opponent will have to defend from both the mutas and the locusts. Because the locusts are free, the swarm host will perform best when only the locusts are at risk of dying, i.e. in offensive engagements. In defensive engagements, the swarm host will be sniped relatively easily and won't contribute all that much to the overall army strength.
In short, the Swarm Host is best when placed in distant, even hidden locations, and harassing your opponent from afar. In direct engagements it is best to have your Swarm Hosts as far away as possible, with a round of locusts at the front of your units. Swarm hosts are a primarily offensive unit, useful for breaking siege lines and other entrenched positions with a slow but steady stream of units to wear down the defenses. Swarm hosts will perform absolutely terribly against masses of bio from Terran.
Lurker: has a very powerful line AoE attack. The power and AoE make this a very effective unit against bio, and mean that the lurker scales very well in big engagements. Lurkers are also effective space control, especially on ramps.
In short, the lurker is best right in the front lines. It functions better defensively than offensively. It is totally worthless when burrowed in a corner and hidden from your opponent. Lurkers absolutely wreck bio balls from Terran.
Warhound: has a strong ground attack that does straight damage (rather than bonus damage to a specific unit type). In addition it has a special attack that auto-targets mechanical units and only mechanical units. Has no air attack. The warhound also has fairly solid hit points.
In short, the warhound will work best to kill ground targets, particularly mechanical ones. In TvT it will be useful for breaking tank lines. In TvP it will be useful for killing stalkers and other mechanical targets, as well as tanking zealot damage.
Goliath: has a strong, fast ground-to-air attack. Also has a rather weak ground-to-ground attack. Mechanical ground targets died about as slow as any possible target could to goliath fire. No one has ever used goliaths to break siege lines. No one ever will.
In short, the goliath was reasonably effective against air targets, and pretty easily killed by ground ones.
Can someone please, please explain to me how these units are even mildly similar, besides in unit model? As far as I can tell, the new units are good in exactly opposite situations of the old units. But go ahead and try to control a ramp by placing three swarm hosts at the top of it or use lurkers primarily as an offensive unit. Go ahead and try to take on tanks with a goliath or counter mutalisks with a warhound. Let me know how that goes
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
funny enough though, every time i watched BW zvz i asked myself: If one of these guys would actually build one Queen and use ensnare on the opponents mutalisk, wouldn't like all his scourges be nearly guaranteed to win? Wouldn't the huge win in mutas justify getting queens? Why no siege tank sniping with Queens? Why not ensnare a group of marines when the spell clearly debuffs them heavily? But then again, most of Brood War looked to me like they guy with faster hands would win most of the time, and rarely the one with the slightly better brain :/
On June 17 2012 09:00 ChristianS wrote: Swarm host: the Swarm Host creates small, weak, free units. These are effective for tanking damage, making the Swarm Host useful for putting in the back of pushes and putting infestors or hydralisks behind. They are also effective in absence of any enemy units, making Locusts useful for harass. Swarm Hosts will combine best with Mutas by applying two-pronged pressure, since the opponent will have to defend from both the mutas and the locusts. Because the locusts are free, the swarm host will perform best when only the locusts are at risk of dying, i.e. in offensive engagements. In defensive engagements, the swarm host will be sniped relatively easily and won't contribute all that much to the overall army strength.
In short, the Swarm Host is best when placed in distant, even hidden locations, and harassing your opponent from afar. In direct engagements it is best to have your Swarm Hosts as far away as possible, with a round of locusts at the front of your units. Swarm hosts are a primarily offensive unit, useful for breaking siege lines and other entrenched positions with a slow but steady stream of units to wear down the defenses. Swarm hosts will perform absolutely terribly against masses of bio from Terran.
Lurker: has a very powerful line AoE attack. The power and AoE make this a very effective unit against bio, and mean that the lurker scales very well in big engagements. Lurkers are also effective space control, especially on ramps.
In short, the lurker is best right in the front lines. It functions better defensively than offensively. It is totally worthless when burrowed in a corner and hidden from your opponent. Lurkers absolutely wreck bio balls from Terran.
Warhound: has a strong ground attack that does straight damage (rather than bonus damage to a specific unit type). In addition it has a special attack that auto-targets mechanical units and only mechanical units. Has no air attack. The warhound also has fairly solid hit points.
In short, the warhound will work best to kill ground targets, particularly mechanical ones. In TvT it will be useful for breaking tank lines. In TvP it will be useful for killing stalkers and other mechanical targets, as well as tanking zealot damage.
Goliath: has a strong, fast ground-to-air attack. Also has a rather weak ground-to-ground attack. Mechanical ground targets died about as slow as any possible target could to goliath fire. No one has ever used goliaths to break siege lines. No one ever will.
In short, the goliath was reasonably effective against air targets, and pretty easily killed by ground ones.
Can someone please, please explain to me how these units are even mildly similar, besides in unit model? As far as I can tell, the new units are good in exactly opposite situations of the old units. But go ahead and try to control a ramp by placing three swarm hosts at the top of it or use lurkers primarily as an offensive unit. Go ahead and try to take on tanks with a goliath or counter mutalisks with a warhound. Let me know how that goes
This is exactly why blizz doesn't want to reintroduce units. Because units can't be modified to change rolls from bw to hots.. and people will complain that this isn't a lurker or this isn't a Goliath. The Goliath looks better than a thor and/or a warhound, the warhound has a new projectile rocket ability that auto targets mechanical units, which could replace what the goliath did which was projectile rockets that hit air. Or alternatively replace the thor instead of having air splash have a goliath that scales and hits air quickly. Just because it was a unit doesn't mean it can't evolve over time to serve the purpose of multiplayer. I think EVERYONE agree's that the warhound and the thor are very bad looking units and a Goliath could easily replace either of them as the model.
As far as the lurker, you can easily half replicate the same effect if you make it spawn 2 bling type units. Then it'll be really good at taking out bio units just like in bw, its good for defence and offence. I don't see why people get so butthurt about changing a unit. Alternatively you can have a unit that burrows, does timed attacks but instead of a line of splash damage it'll just attack w.e it comes into contact to.
Again units can be modified to fit the roles hots needs, I don't see why they have to keep making transformers, but i guess it safe gaurds them from people complaining about a BW unit being completely destroyed, like the hydra is in WoL.
On June 17 2012 07:04 mburke005 wrote: afaik, sc2 was decreasing rapidly # wise, both in stream views, MLG cast #s.
This is a myth. Sometimes individual events have less viewers these days, but this is largely because of the sheer number of events, and most of the people in the know seem to agree that the total views across all events have been, if anything, increasing. And the comparison to LoL is fundamentally flawed because LoL has a ten fold larger player base. It does not in fact have anywhere near a ten fold greater viewership.
On June 17 2012 05:15 Noobity wrote: The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
That locusts from the swarm host can hit AIR, that right there makes it different than the lurker imo completely. It can serve somewhat the role the lurker served in BW but hitting AIR is totally another dynamic that the lurker can't speak to.
That was essentially my point. The units fit roles that, while similar to some BW units, aren't the same. These are different games with different units hitting different steps to meet their final goal, which is a decently balanced game.
On June 17 2012 07:04 mburke005 wrote: afaik, sc2 was decreasing rapidly # wise, both in stream views, MLG cast #s.
This is a myth. Sometimes individual events have less viewers these days, but this is largely because of the sheer number of events, and most of the people in the know seem to agree that the total views across all events have been, if anything, increasing. And the comparison to LoL is fundamentally flawed, because LoL has a ten fold larger player base. It has nowhere near ten fold viewership.
Considering they put up the streams and their client and it has a ridiculous playerbase. Starcraft 2 is squaring up to be doing pretty well when you think of how low the numbers of sc2 copies sold were to LoLs. just goes to show it's a better spectator sport but it just gets over shadowed by LoL's viewership numbers.
New generation players don't seem to like admitting BW's superiority in nearly every regard. The designers seem to be reciprocating this, trying to make the most fundamental aspects of the game as different from BW as possible while still riding on its legacy.
Blizzard shouldn't just re-introduce BW units, but they SHOULD take cues from BW in what made it a success, because the concepts that made BW big are very similar to what is making SC2 big right now. Emphasis on micro and macro, high APM requirement to be good, 3 races instead of doing the more "modern" route of putting more races in, high-risk high-reward units. It's actually ironic how the same people who bash BW for requiring players to fight the pathing system will, in the same breath, talk about how great MKP's marine micro is, which is also a case of fighting the auto-clumping pathing system.
And it's not like Blizzard isn't doing it right now. They put macro mechanics in because we complained how important macro was to them. HotS is putting in space-controlling and anti-deathball units like the swarm host and widow mine because we complained how SC2 was lacking in such units. If you guys don't want SC2 to be like BW, then you're already too late. It's just that for some reason, Blizzard and SC2 fans have convinced themselves that they're not trying to be BW-esque while simultaneously doing the opposite.
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
funny enough though, every time i watched BW zvz i asked myself: If one of these guys would actually build one Queen and use ensnare on the opponents mutalisk, wouldn't like all his scourges be nearly guaranteed to win? Wouldn't the huge win in mutas justify getting queens? Why no siege tank sniping with Queens? Why not ensnare a group of marines when the spell clearly debuffs them heavily? But then again, most of Brood War looked to me like they guy with faster hands would win most of the time, and rarely the one with the slightly better brain :/
If you ever actually played BW you would know all of those answers. Queens have been used to do all of those things, but at the end of the day they just aren't justifiable in most cases. Queens were incredibly cost inefficient and required an extreme amount of micro on top of everything else you had to do. Not to mention, defilers and ultralisks were what you needed to put your gas into. It had nothing to do with the brains of those playing. If you really think you understood BW better than pros who have played the game for over a decade, you're a fool. Please keep this trash out of this discussion.
On June 17 2012 09:42 PH wrote: New generation players don't seem to like admitting BW's superiority in nearly every regard. The designers seem to be reciprocating this, trying to make the most fundamental aspects of the game as different from BW as possible while still riding on its legacy.
It's really sad.
Or they just don't like it. Different opinions and generation gap I would say.
Would people really be upset if they just updated the interface for bw, and just made Bnet more up to date/secure? I would have rather them add more money into tournament structures through the bnet client, have some automated tournaments that Warcraft3 had and just more support for the players(instead of spending time trying to make a new "better" game).
Fuck for money they could have just did what valve does, after each game you get a chance for an item drop or some chest drop that you can use so your marine/scv gets some nice hat or some nice gun(could even have it so these items cant be used for tournies/ladder). Would be so easy to add things to the game to justify the cost of it. But if the balance was just kept the same I am sure many people would be super happy, you can already see them scratch off everything they tried to made, and at the people saying "if you like the bw units then go play bw" I am sure most of the units you like and see as the best are BW units.
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
funny enough though, every time i watched BW zvz i asked myself: If one of these guys would actually build one Queen and use ensnare on the opponents mutalisk, wouldn't like all his scourges be nearly guaranteed to win? Wouldn't the huge win in mutas justify getting queens? Why no siege tank sniping with Queens? Why not ensnare a group of marines when the spell clearly debuffs them heavily? But then again, most of Brood War looked to me like they guy with faster hands would win most of the time, and rarely the one with the slightly better brain :/
If you ever actually played BW you would know all of those answers. Queens have been used to do all of those things, but at the end of the day they just aren't justifiable in most cases. Queens were incredibly cost inefficient and required an extreme amount of micro on top of everything else you had to do. Not to mention, defilers and ultralisks were what you needed to put your gas into. It had nothing to do with the brains of those playing. If you really think you understood BW better than pros who have played the game for over a decade, you're a fool. Please keep this trash out of this discussion.
Not to mention that the best player in history doesn't even have fast hands by progamer standards, Flash is godly because of his brain first and foremost.
If terran got goliath, it would completely break tvp in sc2 lol. And tvz as well, presumably. I wouldn't mind them bringing back dark archons, just with different abilities or a different function, though, it only makes sense. And noone could yell at them for lack of creativity, either.
On June 17 2012 09:42 PH wrote: New generation players don't seem to like admitting BW's superiority in nearly every regard. The designers seem to be reciprocating this, trying to make the most fundamental aspects of the game as different from BW as possible while still riding on its legacy.
It's really sad.
Yeah, I agree, it makes me sad too. It's like, how dare they makes cellphones have other functions other than calling, isn't that why we call it a phone in the first place, how dare they try to change it. I mean, in the old day, those Nokia bricks was the beast, good signals, hard to break, rarely drop calls. Nowadays, all those smartphones have unneeded functions, easy to break, and drop call all the time. How dare they try to make my fundamental aspect of my phone as different as the old day while still riding on its legacy, they should be ashamed of calling it cellphone. I miss my old phone.
On June 17 2012 09:42 PH wrote: New generation players don't seem to like admitting BW's superiority in nearly every regard. The designers seem to be reciprocating this, trying to make the most fundamental aspects of the game as different from BW as possible while still riding on its legacy.
It's really sad.
Yeah, I agree, it makes me sad too. It's like, how dare they makes cellphones have other functions other than calling, isn't that why we call it a phone in the first place, how dare they try to change it. I mean, in the old day, those Nokia bricks was the beast, good signals, hard to break, rarely drop calls. Nowadays, all those smartphones have unneeded functions, easy to break, and drop call all the time. How dare they try to make my fundamental aspect of my phone as different as the old day while still riding on its legacy, they should be ashamed of calling it cellphone. I miss my old phone.
Slightly offtopic but I should note that some SCII units are excellent. The baneling immediately comes to mind. A very awesome cool unit. SCII just needs more awesome cool units. The swarm host isn't very cool. Abduct is very cool. The tempest isn't very cool, the hellhound or whatever is OK but not great. Scouts in BW were not very cool, hence why they were never used much.
I consider hydralisks, zlings, rines, dragoons, stalkers, and zealots to be breadandbutter units where they don't need to be amazingly cool, but rather do their job well, but for tech units they need to be cool and awesome and powerful, which is where I feel SCII sometimes fails. Thors are good because they're awesome, same as banelings; sometimes I think Blizzard focuses too much on giving units roles though, instead of having cool concepts and putting them in.
On June 17 2012 10:52 Birdie wrote: Slightly offtopic but I should note that some SCII units are excellent. The baneling immediately comes to mind. A very awesome cool unit. SCII just needs more awesome cool units. The swarm host isn't very cool. Abduct is very cool. The tempest isn't very cool, the hellhound or whatever is OK but not great. Scouts in BW were not very cool, hence why they were never used much.
I consider hydralisks, zlings, rines, dragoons, stalkers, and zealots to be breadandbutter units where they don't need to be amazingly cool, but rather do their job well, but for tech units they need to be cool and awesome and powerful, which is where I feel SCII sometimes fails. Thors are good because they're awesome, same as banelings; sometimes I think Blizzard focuses too much on giving units roles though, instead of having cool concepts and putting them in.
Sshhh, people are gonna say baneling is a micmic of scourge, after all, BW invented suiciding units, you know, we've never seen that kind of units in history of warfare before.
On June 17 2012 10:52 Birdie wrote: Slightly offtopic but I should note that some SCII units are excellent. The baneling immediately comes to mind. A very awesome cool unit. SCII just needs more awesome cool units. The swarm host isn't very cool. Abduct is very cool. The tempest isn't very cool, the hellhound or whatever is OK but not great. Scouts in BW were not very cool, hence why they were never used much.
I consider hydralisks, zlings, rines, dragoons, stalkers, and zealots to be breadandbutter units where they don't need to be amazingly cool, but rather do their job well, but for tech units they need to be cool and awesome and powerful, which is where I feel SCII sometimes fails. Thors are good because they're awesome, same as banelings; sometimes I think Blizzard focuses too much on giving units roles though, instead of having cool concepts and putting them in.
Sshhh, people are gonna say baneling is a micmic of scourge, after all, BW invented suiciding units, you know, you've never seen that kind of units in history of warfare before.
Preposterous. The baneling is a mimic of the original Infested Terran.
On June 17 2012 10:52 Birdie wrote: Slightly offtopic but I should note that some SCII units are excellent. The baneling immediately comes to mind. A very awesome cool unit. SCII just needs more awesome cool units. The swarm host isn't very cool. Abduct is very cool. The tempest isn't very cool, the hellhound or whatever is OK but not great. Scouts in BW were not very cool, hence why they were never used much.
I consider hydralisks, zlings, rines, dragoons, stalkers, and zealots to be breadandbutter units where they don't need to be amazingly cool, but rather do their job well, but for tech units they need to be cool and awesome and powerful, which is where I feel SCII sometimes fails. Thors are good because they're awesome, same as banelings; sometimes I think Blizzard focuses too much on giving units roles though, instead of having cool concepts and putting them in.
And here's evidence to just how subjective this whole thing is.
I hate the baneling imo. It makes early game ZvZ a nightmare, is a no skill a-move unit whose role would be so much better suited to the Lurker.
On June 17 2012 10:52 Birdie wrote: Slightly offtopic but I should note that some SCII units are excellent. The baneling immediately comes to mind. A very awesome cool unit. SCII just needs more awesome cool units. The swarm host isn't very cool. Abduct is very cool. The tempest isn't very cool, the hellhound or whatever is OK but not great. Scouts in BW were not very cool, hence why they were never used much.
I consider hydralisks, zlings, rines, dragoons, stalkers, and zealots to be breadandbutter units where they don't need to be amazingly cool, but rather do their job well, but for tech units they need to be cool and awesome and powerful, which is where I feel SCII sometimes fails. Thors are good because they're awesome, same as banelings; sometimes I think Blizzard focuses too much on giving units roles though, instead of having cool concepts and putting them in.
And here's evidence to just how subjective this whole thing is.
I hate the baneling imo. It makes early game ZvZ a nightmare, is a no skill a-move unit whose role would be so much better suited to the Lurker.
But that's just my opinion.
I hate the baneling as well. As a Z player it feels like the unit is so powerful that it kind of holds back the design of the Zerg race and justifies some of the overpowered aspects of the other races. A 1/2f unit that for 50/25 blows up, dealing massive amount of aoe damage is probably too good.
How pathetic would it look if for SC2's first expansion introduced units that were introduced in SC1's expansion 13 years ago?
They probably could have got away with one - either the reaver or the lurker, since they are so liked. But another thing to consider is that good untis in BW don't necessarily translate into good units in SC2.
Well my not quite so original idea is that the answer is exactly the reason blizzard keeps giving to this question when asked. The bw units that are not in sc2 just does not fit in, or fills a function that is already covered. They don't want to put the lurker in because they feel that it does not add a role that is missing. What good would the vulture, wraith or firebat be for terran in sc2? All the roles those units fill are already covered and you just end up with an unnecessary unit.
People who think that BW units could easily be ported into SC2 and maintain their same stats, balance, usage, and micro have no understanding of game design. It's a different game guys; bringing in BW units won't make this game more like BW. In fact you'd probably just all complain the same way we do about the hydra: "omg why is it not exactly like BW?" It's because it's a different game.
How about: after Legacy of the Void (third and last part of SC2), and after some time, Blizzard publishes a fully precise 3D-version of Broodwar? (existing fan mod or mods, will never get as precise as Blizz could make them)
The topmost reason for the need of these 3 parts of SC2 and the way they are designed is... money. But I'm fine with that! Buying Broodwar for 5 bucks I think nowadays doesn't represent accurately how much I'd wish to payback to Blizzard for making it. Buying 3 modern games from them for ~50 bucks is more like it.
So it's okay, I'll pay, I think they deserve it for old times' sake, but please eventually just remake Broodwar in 3D and let it be.
On June 17 2012 11:05 Vindicare605 wrote: I hate the baneling imo. It makes early game ZvZ a nightmare, is a no skill a-move unit
Ever heard of manually exploding a baneling while it's moving between multiple moving enemy units to catch them all in one hit? Few pro's today even have the tactical timing and reaction to pull this off correctly, but with Kespa elite now rising the skill, hopefully we are yet to see some baneling control like we've never seen before.
On June 17 2012 02:24 lorkac wrote: If you listen to a lot of Browder's interviews he actually gave a lot of sideways answers to your question.
The main things that have stopped them from bringing them back is linked to the effectiveness, their desire for a linear design path, and their need for regulated succession of tech opportunities without causing overlap.
For example, let us take the Lurker. (Everyone's fave go to unit when talking about this)
Browder's team wants Zerg to have weak early game AA
What does this mean?
Zerglings, Roaches, and Banelings don't shoot up. Crawlers and Queens are stuck on creep.
The Hydralisk at hatch tech would break that race design preference by being a mobile anti-air unit during the early game.
Browder's team also wants for tech progression to be linear with fancier stuff being "up a notch" in tech.
So hatch tech gets you Roaches, Zerglings, and Banelings while lair tech gets you Hydras, Infestors, and Mutalisks.
The Hydras have to be Lair tech to give zerg a weak early game AA. So it would seam weird and non-linear to have Hydralisks AND Lurkers be available at the same tech--Lair Tech. So, much like Overseer and the Broodlord, the only logical place to put Lurkers would be Hive tech.
What did this cause?
I remember David Kim saying that it made the Lurker too weak in their testing. Why?
Because hive tech does not normally come until way deep into the game. The Lurker could no longer play the role people wanted it to play because at Hive tech, the Lurker was already the Unit lurkers would stall the game to get to.
In BW, Lurkers allowed you to be safe as you teched hard to defilers. Once you had Defilers and extra gas bases you were able to start pushing back. With the Lurker at Hive tech--it would turn from a defensive siege weapon with offensive capabilities based on timing attacks into a cloaked Hydralisk.
So why isn't the Lurker in the game?
Because of the combination of two philosophies that shoved the Lurker too high up the tech tree.
Is it easy to fix? Yes, technically, but it would a restructuring of the game.
Roaches and Hydralisks switch spots. Queen loses her AA ability becoming a purely melee unit while Hydralisks are slowed down even more off creep. (About the same speed as the queen off creep would suffice)
Lair tech would then lead to our first overlap issue. Roaches and Lurkers seems to both take up the "burrowed combat unit" slot at the same tech juncture. How do you resolve it?
You give us back the old roach and make the lurker move slow off creep (about as fast as the Hydralisk is now)
3 range, 2 armor, and 1 supply.
This creates a dynamic choice in unit composition and tactical space control.
Roaches would be really good at moving out into the map to do hit and runs. At lair tech they come late enough that marauders and Immortals will be online in time. The roaches will be a lot weaker (forcefields actually forcefields roaches) marines would actually be able to kite roaches, etc... but there will be more of them.
Lurkers would be slow units that you use to hold key positions At hydra Speed you're more likely to be keeping them where you are spreading creep while needing drop tech to actually be able to harass with them.
Why don't they do this? That I can't tell you. But I do know why they don't have the Lurker. At least, what I believe their reasons to be based off of how they talk about unit design in their interviews.
It isn't important that we have our own logical reasons for having certain units "back," what you need to figure out is why it is that Browder and his team reached the conclusion they did. They will never listen to your logic of "It would be cooler" or "In BW it was like _____" because at the end of the day those types of arguments and reasonings are subjective. Hech, I could complain that Command and Conquer was way more fun than BW and that we should bring in MORE a-move units like the collossus/mammoth tank.
Try thinking about things from Browder and his team's mindset, then see if there is a better way to present your case based on what it is that they're trying to do.
Personally? I reserve judgement on unit design and unit choices for when Void comes out. We already know that the release of the expansion will not only add units, but it has the options to remove units and completely redesign them as well. Once the Beta is over the release of HotS will show how much they are willing to change their game from expansion to expansion in an attempt to reach a certain level of perfection. We have at least one more reset coming after HotS, I'd rather wait for that before I whine about Protoss not really having a dynamic spellcaster outside of the Sentry...
This lurker analysis is what the community need to realize. Even if we put in the same unit in the game, it will not work out the way that we want unless the whole SC2 is revamp to copy the BW. And that's one of the reasons why Blizzard does not want to add those units into the game for the sake of adding them. This will just make the non-BW players think that the new game is just a new version of BW, and they will ask the same question, why would I play the new BW instead of the orginal one. They have no knowledge of BW and cannot tell much of the difference between the 2 games (SC2:BW vs SC:BW). The BW fans may cheer but the others will just take a look and turn away, especially for those who are not a fan of BW. Consequently, the fanbase of the new game will just remain the same, instead of expanding. Now, we add in the factor that the dynamic of the new game will be in fact different from BW, some of the BW fans might not even like it. They leave, and what we have left for the new game is just a shrinked BW fanbase. That is not what Blizzard wants, and that's why there must be something literally new in the game. We cannot simply hope for a BW2.0 to succeed as a new E-sports title. And the thing we used to cheer for will no longer exist in the new scene. The game developer have to find new things for players to cheer for, unfortunately, those might now be what you like, but to Blizzard, they will have more fans.
For those who are not just wanting BW 2.0, BW units maybe a good fit for SC2 in some situations, but we have to be the one who explains why to Blizzard. Just to quote lorkac once more:
It isn't important that we have our own logical reasons for having certain units "back," what you need to figure out is why it is that Browder and his team reached the conclusion they did. They will never listen to your logic of "It would be cooler" or "In BW it was like _____" because at the end of the day those types of arguments and reasonings are subjective.
Just imagine if SC2 is the one to come out first and SC:BW is the sequent , and SC2 fans are asking to replace defiler with vipers, replacing lurkers with swarmhosts, bashing dragoons cuz they cannot blink and have no idea how to walk, shitting all over scouts. How will you feel, do you think such an argument is enough? If you think they are not, then you should understand why Blizzard is not buying these arguments
Colossus is not a great unit, but is reaver a better replacement? With the new path finding, will the sacrab be too strong? Will seeing the scarab always straight up hitting target kill the suspension? Will mass tightly packed zealots block the path of the scarabs?
My take on the swarm host vs lurker: They both are good at controling space. However, they do it through different way. By spawning units, you can keep the opponent at bay but it gives the chance for the enemy to fire and retreat. The lurker do it through a straight up attack. The stragiht line attack can be very micro & positional dependent. Swarm host give players more time to react while the lurker punishes reckless opponents harder. Swarm host can cut off retreat paths better than lurker and of course give some air support. On the other hand, lurkers are better at agressions than swarm hosts. If you use swarm hosts the way you use lurker in BW , you are gonna get a lot less out of them from attack.
In short, swarm host and lurker does the same thing through different ways, I do not think anyone of them have an edge over the other. It is more of a preference thing for someone to like it over the other one. In SC2 where terrible terrible damage is everywhere, swarm hosts maybe a better choice to implement to sprinkle in some longer and slower engagements.
Thors do serve a different role than goliaths ...they heavily punish ill-microed muta, and can be mass repaired (I did not count stomping FF here)
We have to take the active role to persuade Blizzard why those particular BW units should be there and those arguments are not just subjective opinions. Ultimately, we all want a better and bigger E-sports scene (at least for RTS). If the ideas we suggest are good for the scene, everyone would embrace them, no matter you are from BW or from SC2. Blizzard may not always make the best decision, but I am confident that they will always make good decisions to push the scene further. We should just discuss how the ideas would work and suggest them with open mind. Shooting down ideas just because of subjective opinions is never healthy. Stay objective and admit the difference between the new ideas and the original BW units.
Sometime people in this community are quite stupid if you ask me. They think just adding BW units to current SC2 and it will work without even thinking about it.
I don't need BW units but I need good unit. BW units are not always good for SC2. Swarmhost works really different from Lurker. Widow mine and Spider mine are not the same too. BW had so many flaws just like SC2. It's not some perfect game that you should copy everything from it. If SC2 is basically the same as BW we wouldn'thave TvT with mech vs bio which is like 2 different races playing each other like we have now and many things that are better than BW . SC2 is not BW. It has its good and bad. We have to move forward. I welcome BW units bck into SC2 but if they are needed not because some nostalgic reason.
Ddifferent mechanics, different engine different everything. I even think the lurker would be a terrible decision if directly transposed into SC2, especially since units have a tendency to form balls in SC2.
The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? Yet...the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
The community needs to start thinking like game designers (dangerous, I know, but hear me out). You all assume that because things are the way they are in WoL, that HotS has to maintain the status quo. That is not so.
Micro potential could be improved in a month or so, if they wanted to. Macro mechanics could be eliminated overnight, and the game would have more back and forth, and comebacks would be more feasible. Blizzard could declare they've decided to balance the game around very open maps, rather than using the closed off map pool as a crutch for hyper concentrated deathballs. Detection could become less of a commodity to give stealthy units like Roaches/Lurkers/Banes/DTs more excitement. Why are Ravens so rare? Because scan is now a commodity where it used to be a precious resource in BW.
The assertion that reavers and lurkers and spider mines would be imbalanced in SC2 is ridiculous for two reasons. First, it's silly because they were all imbalanced in BW and that's what made it great. Secondly, it's silly because you exaggerate the effort required to make adjustments to the units for SC2. You would either tweak the damage or fix unit spacing to not overlap, and you're good to go. I believe the SC2BW guy has even developed the inconsistent Reaver shot and vulture patrol micro himself - how hard for Blizzard's competent team could that be?
On June 17 2012 12:30 0neder wrote: The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? OH WAIT, the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
Woah now!
This is the exact sort of subjective statement this entire thread is filled with. That sentence I bolded is simply YOUR opinion and there's plenty of people that would disagree whole heartedly with it.
Having an opinion is fine, trying to use it to justify huge sweeping changes to core gameplay just to suit it is not ok.
On June 17 2012 12:02 figq wrote: How about: after Legacy of the Void (third and last part of SC2), and after some time, Blizzard publishes a fully precise 3D-version of Broodwar? (existing fan mod or mods, will never get as precise as Blizz could make them)
The topmost reason for the need of these 3 parts of SC2 and the way they are designed is... money. But I'm fine with that! Buying Broodwar for 5 bucks I think nowadays doesn't represent accurately how much I'd wish to payback to Blizzard for making it. Buying 3 modern games from them for ~50 bucks is more like it.
So it's okay, I'll pay, I think they deserve it for old times' sake, but please eventually just remake Broodwar in 3D and let it be.
On June 17 2012 11:05 Vindicare605 wrote: I hate the baneling imo. It makes early game ZvZ a nightmare, is a no skill a-move unit
Ever heard of manually exploding a baneling while it's moving between multiple moving enemy units to catch them all in one hit? Few pro's today even have the tactical timing and reaction to pull this off correctly, but with Kespa elite now rising the skill, hopefully we are yet to see some baneling control like we've never seen before.
but why not just play bw then?
There's actually a custom mod called sc2bw already anyway. if ur looking for the sc2 graphics version of bw
So much wrong with this thread, but I'm sure when LotV comes out most if not all of the original units will be available to mod makers. Then anyone can create a campaign that mimics BW for those that want it and Blizz won't have to do a thing. "Problem" solved.
On June 17 2012 12:30 0neder wrote: The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? Yet...the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
The community needs to start thinking like game designers (dangerous, I know, but hear me out). You all assume that because things are the way they are in WoL, that HotS has to maintain the status quo. That is not so.
Micro potential could be improved in a month or so, if they wanted to. Macro mechanics could be eliminated overnight, and the game would have more back and forth, and comebacks would be more feasible. Blizzard could declare they've decided to balance the game around very open maps, rather than using the closed off map pool as a crutch for hyper concentrated deathballs. Detection could become less of a commodity to give stealthy units like Roaches/Lurkers/Banes/DTs more excitement. Why are Ravens so rare? Because scan is now a commodity where it used to be a precious resource in BW.
The assertion that reavers and lurkers and spider mines would be imbalanced in SC2 is ridiculous for two reasons. First, it's silly because they were all imbalanced in BW and that's what made it great. Secondly, it's silly because you exaggerate the effort required to make adjustments to the units for SC2. You would either tweak the damage or fix unit spacing to not overlap, and you're good to go. I believe the SC2BW guy has even developed the inconsistent Reaver shot and vulture patrol micro himself - how hard for Blizzard's competent team could that be?
It's not that you need more splash damage, it's that you need more map control. Units that, if the other player attacked into, would be extremely cost inefficient. Siege Tanks up a cliff, for example. The problem with the colossus is that it is really mobile for its damage output.
I really wish BW had stayed more popular but I guess people want better graphics xD But anyways can't really re-add in BW units cuz then people will be like "You dumb Blizzard? Why did you take them out in the first place" BW units were really awesome tho so I guess they want to kinda imitate them...Loved so many BW units and abilities I love the old queen with infest and ensnare and brood lord just doesnt match up to spawn broodling...lurker vs marine was one of the best things ever...And who can forget Reaver Reaver Reaver
Blizz should re release BW with awesome graphics to get it more popular :D
Oh and my anit-air sucks now that I dont have scourge lol
On June 17 2012 12:02 figq wrote: How about: after Legacy of the Void (third and last part of SC2), and after some time, Blizzard publishes a fully precise 3D-version of Broodwar? (existing fan mod or mods, will never get as precise as Blizz could make them)
The topmost reason for the need of these 3 parts of SC2 and the way they are designed is... money. But I'm fine with that! Buying Broodwar for 5 bucks I think nowadays doesn't represent accurately how much I'd wish to payback to Blizzard for making it. Buying 3 modern games from them for ~50 bucks is more like it.
So it's okay, I'll pay, I think they deserve it for old times' sake, but please eventually just remake Broodwar in 3D and let it be.
On June 17 2012 11:05 Vindicare605 wrote: I hate the baneling imo. It makes early game ZvZ a nightmare, is a no skill a-move unit
Ever heard of manually exploding a baneling while it's moving between multiple moving enemy units to catch them all in one hit? Few pro's today even have the tactical timing and reaction to pull this off correctly, but with Kespa elite now rising the skill, hopefully we are yet to see some baneling control like we've never seen before.
but why not just play bw then?
There's actually a custom mod called sc2bw already anyway. if ur looking for the sc2 graphics version of bw
They need to make BW look like a state of the art game, for those - surprisingly many - fans of gaming who don't take a game seriously, because "it looks like some cell phone java game". Also, they need to add stuff like observer information tabs, control groups, selecting workers to count them, total harvester count, total kills count etc. Observing in BW is too limited for nowadays standards.
As I said, no custom mods will ever be precise enough. Blizzard needs to do it themselves, and rework the core engine for that purpose too. 3D Broodwar will be so different from SC2 that it should not even be called a mod, because of different core engine concepts.
On June 17 2012 12:30 0neder wrote: The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? OH WAIT, the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
Woah now!
This is the exact sort of subjective statement this entire thread is filled with. That sentence I bolded is simply YOUR opinion and there's plenty of people that would disagree whole heartedly with it.
Having an opinion is fine, trying to use it to justify huge sweeping changes to core gameplay just to suit it is not ok.
My friend, with all due respect how familiar are you with BW? It was based around a handful of ridiculously overpowered splash units: Tanks, lurkers, corsairs, psionic storm, plague, and what players did to abuse them and overcome them. If you take the most exciting moments in BW gameplay, almost all of them involve splash damage.
What made GGaemo's mouth drop open? OP Splash Damage.
What made people wonder how Jangbi had the superhuman ability to manually cast all these storms? OP Splash Damage.
What rewarded one of the best microers in the world with killing 10-16 supply with only 2 zealots? OP Splash Damage.
What made this imbalanced reaver so exciting, even at the expense of low level players? OP Splash damage.
What does OP Splash Damage like Lurkers do? It promotes ridiculous micro skill development (wouldn't you like to see more opportunities for SC2 careers to take off like marineking's? then put in more splash damage)
Please tell me objectively why reducing splash damage is better for spectating excitement or players. Because objectively, we know that 'terrible terrible splash damage' is what makes SC exciting and is one of the main reasons it survived for so long. The more splash, the more risk, the more excitement. We can debate about units, but please don't say that reducing splash damage does not objectively hurt SC2's excitement for fans.
This isn't BW 2.0. It is a different game, with different units, with different roles. You can't just throw the reaver into the protoss army, because they already have HT and colossi.
On June 17 2012 12:30 0neder wrote: The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? Yet...the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
The community needs to start thinking like game designers (dangerous, I know, but hear me out). You all assume that because things are the way they are in WoL, that HotS has to maintain the status quo. That is not so.
Micro potential could be improved in a month or so, if they wanted to. Macro mechanics could be eliminated overnight, and the game would have more back and forth, and comebacks would be more feasible. Blizzard could declare they've decided to balance the game around very open maps, rather than using the closed off map pool as a crutch for hyper concentrated deathballs. Detection could become less of a commodity to give stealthy units like Roaches/Lurkers/Banes/DTs more excitement. Why are Ravens so rare? Because scan is now a commodity where it used to be a precious resource in BW.
The assertion that reavers and lurkers and spider mines would be imbalanced in SC2 is ridiculous for two reasons. First, it's silly because they were all imbalanced in BW and that's what made it great. Secondly, it's silly because you exaggerate the effort required to make adjustments to the units for SC2. You would either tweak the damage or fix unit spacing to not overlap, and you're good to go. I believe the SC2BW guy has even developed the inconsistent Reaver shot and vulture patrol micro himself - how hard for Blizzard's competent team could that be?
It's not that you need more splash damage, it's that you need more map control. Units that, if the other player attacked into, would be extremely cost inefficient. Siege Tanks up a cliff, for example. The problem with the colossus is that it is really mobile for its damage output.
I completely agree my friend. If the colossus stays in the game, it should become slower but do more damage and one shot more things. If not, it should be replaced by something that does. Also, high-ground mechanics will help if re-introduced, as will making detection not a commodity (EG observer building back and making scan cost the terran more).
honestly this thread has been posted many times before why is this even being talked about still when blizzard has stated many times that it isn't going to happen?
On June 17 2012 13:18 TechNoTrance wrote: This isn't BW 2.0. It is a different game, with different units, with different roles. You can't just throw the reaver into the protoss army, because they already have HT and colossi.
Nobody's suggesting that the colossus and reaver would coexist. They say that the colossus should become more interesting (eg more extreme strengths/weaknesses) and more legible.
On June 17 2012 13:19 sc14s wrote: honestly this thread has been posted many times before why is this even being talked about still when blizzard has stated many times that it isn't going to happen?
Don't you think the discussions here have influenced the units currently proposed for Hots? Do you think they would have considered bastardized implementations of arbiters, defilers, goliaths, and spider mines were it not for our outcry from the initial preview? We have influence, and TLers understand better than anyone the foundational principles behind BW's greatness. Few of us want SC2BW, but there are many who see big holes in SC2 compared to the richness of BW.
As someone who loved BW, I actually do enjoy seeing new units, except carrier, because carriers simply rock and it's blasphemous what they did to it. But HOTS new units seem like just adjustments of old BW units. Perhaps it's simply impossible to come up with entirely new concepts(or they look weird like the Tempest), but it seems weird that I look at viper/swarm hosts and immediately think of defiler/lurker. I'd actually prefer a fairly new concept unit like the corruptor.
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP.
Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts.
Regardless of whether this is serious or a troll, this is one of the funniest things I've ever read. That being said, I've found a way to separate the games in my mind, BW is the one I play, Sc2 is the one I watch. I'm super sad that the BW pro scene is essentially, but that doesn't mean I still can't enjoy playing BW at the awful skill level that I play it at.
I don't know why the argument that SC2 is a completely different game to BW exists. Obviously they aren't different games, one is the sequel of the other. There really should be no issue about borrowing ideas from BW to use in SC2, given that BW has a decade long tested history of what works and what doesn't. That doesn't mean units have to be copied from BW, it's enough that they take the concepts behind their unit design and adapt them to SC2. Given that Browder has spoken in interviews (especially in the MLG TL interview) on similar terms, and given that units like viper and swarm host do that, i don't really see the issue.
I like how the new expansion basically introduces units that are in the same spirit as many of the core BW units in SC2 ( think lurker, defiler, spider mine, goliath and firebats).
I like how Dustin Browder refuses to acknowledge this and tells us to play BW instead if we want to use BW units and yet is killing off the BW scene.
Blizzard has turned into Activision. Blizzard had a gold mine of a franchaise to build on and they decide to do everything in their power to screw it up instead. Now BW pros are turning to League of Legend instead, for shame.
On June 17 2012 13:36 sigma_x wrote: I don't know why the argument that SC2 is a completely different game to BW exists. Obviously they aren't different games, one is the sequel of the other. There really should be no issue about borrowing ideas from BW to use in SC2, given that BW has a decade long tested history of what works and what doesn't. That doesn't mean units have to be copied from BW, it's enough that they take the concepts behind their unit design and adapt them to SC2. Given that Browder has spoken in interviews (especially in the MLG TL interview) on similar terms, and given that units like viper and swarm host do that, i don't really see the issue.
Adaptation is fine as long as it isn't done in a band-aid way or a way that directly conflicts with blizzard's own objective to maintain racial distinction.
Here are a few disconnects I see with the current HotS unit mix:
Oracles cloak costs mana - this should be passive, protoss units never cloak for mana. Buildable suicide units are a zerg thing. Keep widow mines if you want, but give them to a unit (reaper, hellion, warhound, etc) Why not just give the carrier 22 range to appease the fans? Why insist on the tempest? Limiting recalls to be only defensive - why? Limiting dark swarm to only bio? so arbitrary, why? Mothership core too similar to PF and unnecessary Entomb is very abitrary and corner case It's not exciting when you have detection in every tech path. make players make tough choices and take risks. Too many anti-tank units. Why are we so afraid of the siege tank being good? Too many high supply units.
On June 17 2012 13:36 sigma_x wrote: I don't know why the argument that SC2 is a completely different game to BW exists. Obviously they aren't different games, one is the sequel of the other. There really should be no issue about borrowing ideas from BW to use in SC2, given that BW has a decade long tested history of what works and what doesn't. That doesn't mean units have to be copied from BW, it's enough that they take the concepts behind their unit design and adapt them to SC2. Given that Browder has spoken in interviews (especially in the MLG TL interview) on similar terms, and given that units like viper and swarm host do that, i don't really see the issue.
Adaptation is fine as long as it isn't done in a band-aid way or a way that directly conflicts with blizzard's own objective to maintain racial distinction.
Here are a few disconnects I see with the current HotS unit mix:
Oracles cloak costs mana - this should be passive, protoss units never cloak for mana. Buildable suicide units are a zerg thing. Keep widow mines if you want, but give them to a unit (reaper, hellion, warhound, etc) Why not just give the carrier 22 range to appease the fans? Why insist on the tempest? Limiting recalls to be only defensive - why? Limiting dark swarm to only bio? so arbitrary, why? Mothership core too similar to PF and unnecessary Entomb is very abitrary and corner case It's not exciting when you have detection in every tech path. make players make tough choices and take risks. Too many anti-tank units. Why are we so afraid of the siege tank being good? Too many high supply units.
Whoops hit submit way too soon, but I think the idea of a range increase to the carrier would be kinda kook, but may take away any chance of micro if it is too large of an increase, like 22. Also the mother ship core is nothing like a pf. One, you cannot repair, two the attack doesn't do splash, and three, it can be transported to different nexuses. As far as the oracle goes, the core has an ability that can give a unit full energy, basically making the cloaking ability free right at the start, but to be permanent and free is too much for a unit that can be built rather quickly. Lastly, the mother ship still has the ability to cloak offensively you just have defensive capabilities early, which allow the protoss to move out with ease of mind knowing they can retreat easily, actually making it facilitate offense
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
The problem is that SC2 has changed core mechanics for the three races (MULE+Reactor, larva inject+larva stockpiling, Chronoboost+Warp Gate) and this makes it necessary to change units. In BW you could produce Marines at the same rate as tanks ... 1 per production building ... but SC2 changed that and I dont think it was for the better, because it makes the game more volatile and thus harder to balance. In BW you didnt have Zerg's unlimited reproductive ability which they have in SC2, no stockpiling of larvae from injects, and thus you had to be kinda careful with your units until you had enough hatcheries. Now its just a question of resources. Thus in BW the defiler cloud was ok, but for SC2 the Viper cloud it is extremely dangerous and imbalanced.
There have to be adjustments when it comes to copying BW units and one of the most mishandled examples is the Carrier. It got into SC2 by being an iconic unit, but the new situation on the battlefield (stimmed marines in a perfectly tight ball in "unlimited numbers") render it useless very fast. This *could* be fixed in a lot of ways, but Blizzard is doing nothing instead. Maybe it is delayed to the Protoss expansion, but that would be such a shame.
Blizzard really should have added a BW mod for the fans.
On June 17 2012 13:57 0neder wrote: Buildable suicide units are a zerg thing. Keep widow mines if you want, but give them to a unit (reaper, hellion, warhound, etc)
More variety isn't bad. Infact were there buildable suicide units for Zerg in BW?
Why not just give the carrier 22 range to appease the fans? Why insist on the tempest?
Because variety is a good thing. 22 range with interceptors? It won't be fun to watch.
Limiting recalls to be only defensive - why?
Because offensive recalls are fucking ridiculously overpowered with the clumping and in particular slow terran armies.
Limiting dark swarm to only bio? so arbitrary, why?
Its not dark swarm. I have no idea why people think its dark swarm. And no fungal isn't dark swarm either.
Mothership core too similar to PF and unnecessary
Since no more KA its hard to defend protoss basis. Something like PF is necessary. Actually I think Zerg needs something like that also. If swarm hosts cost less supply it would be great. Meanwhile zerg will lose bases but do get the chance to counter quickly.
Entomb is very abitrary and corner case
Entomb is one hell of a cool ability. Its really unique because it can be done quickly, continuously with little risk (oracles seem hella fast). The damage isn't overwhelming and it requires awareness for the players. I can't wait to see what pro players do with the oracle.
It's not exciting when you have detection in every tech path. make players make tough choices and take risks. Too many anti-tank units. Why are we so afraid of the siege tank being good? Too many high supply units.
Seige tanks are too good. They are good because they can be brought out early, 1 shot lings, large upgrade bonus, large numeric bonus and great positional power. A lot of the new units seem to be designed to hurt them. Tempest with long range, oracle with cheap cloak, viper with abduct and the locusts having 2 range.
Honestly the new units look awesome. Even the little things like burrow charge and hydra speed will make the games fun to watch.
I don't know what the past metagame of BW was but watching zergs play today is dull (in BW). Maybe its just because I haven't seen a lot of great games of Zergs but I really hope SC2 doesn't turn into BW.
edit: Ah the scourge was a suicide unit for Zerg. My apologies.
On June 17 2012 13:57 0neder wrote: Oracles cloak costs mana - this should be passive, protoss units never cloak for mana. Buildable suicide units are a zerg thing. Keep widow mines if you want, but give them to a unit (reaper, hellion, warhound, etc) Why not just give the carrier 22 range to appease the fans? Why insist on the tempest? Limiting recalls to be only defensive - why? Limiting dark swarm to only bio? so arbitrary, why? Mothership core too similar to PF and unnecessary Entomb is very abitrary and corner case It's not exciting when you have detection in every tech path. make players make tough choices and take risks. Too many anti-tank units. Why are we so afraid of the siege tank being good? Too many high supply units.
1. You cant have mass cloak for Protoss on a broad scale because Overlords arent detectors anymore and EMP is on the Ghost now instead of the detecting Science Vessel. 2. Well Spider Mines were added on the terran bikes and the reaver had to pay for its shots too. Also the broodlings from broodlords are free. The widow mines is a mix of spider mine and irradiate plus the ability to attach itself to a flying unit (how and why I dont really know). 3. Adding the shot from the tempest to the carrier is one way of fixing that unit ... but only with the old BW carrier graphics. 4. Recalls arent limited to defense ... because you can still build your mothership and use it offensively. 5. This "reduce range to 1" cloud is totally IMBA anyways because SC2 has MUCH tighter armies and thus it will be more effective. The only way to balance it is to reduce the radius to a "why bother with it?" radius ... 6. Yeah ... I can already see the Mothership Core rush in copper league. You are right in that it is very similar to the PF. 7. Entomb is OP and stupid. Its such an "anti-MULE" ability and totally not creative. 8. "Too many anti-tank units" is really a good summary of a problem, especially since the tank is the one unit with several HUGE drawbacks. No other unit has friendly fire and no other unit has to lock itself into place to activate its true potential. 9. High supply units give a wider range to "play with abilities" because you cant really mass them. The true racially different style cant be kept up in low supply units, because there isnt that much need for high variety.
Summing this all up I am highly doubtful the release date for this expansion makes sense. How long did the beta for WoL last? And how long afterwards did we have drastic changes to unit balance? Many of the new unit abilities are so imbalanced in their design that they cant be fixed (all of the Viper abilities, entomb, yet another "free wall/siege unit" for zerg from the swarm host). Common sense shows sooo many problems with the new stuff if you add it on top of the old, that it should have told them NOT to go public with it yet.
-----
One thing which annoys me somewhat is the commentary in the HotS battle report. It is in the same "our viewers are babys and thus we talk to them in an appropriate way" style which we had for the first part, but commentary has evolved since then and they even had Day(9) in it. What a disappointment.
On June 17 2012 13:18 TechNoTrance wrote: This isn't BW 2.0. It is a different game, with different units, with different roles. You can't just throw the reaver into the protoss army, because they already have HT and colossi.
Nobody's suggesting that the colossus and reaver would coexist. They say that the colossus should become more interesting (eg more extreme strengths/weaknesses) and more legible.
I know that. It was an example... My point being that there is no point reintroducing units that have no role in this game. If they wanted to make BW with better graphics they could have, but they didn't. They made a new game.
because it's a new game, plain and simple. if all the units they introduce in the expansions are just the brood war units that were cut from wings of liberty, i would feel pretty ripped off. they're trying to fill those roles with new game mechanics. if it doesn't work out and sc2 fails as an e-sport and blah blah blah, so be it. they didn't invest all that time and money developing a game just for it to be "brood war with better graphics."
i mean they modeled most of these new units after brood war units, how much closer do you think they can get without literally just saying "we're scrubbing starcraft 2, go back to brood war"?
On June 17 2012 13:18 TechNoTrance wrote: This isn't BW 2.0. It is a different game, with different units, with different roles. You can't just throw the reaver into the protoss army, because they already have HT and colossi.
Nobody's suggesting that the colossus and reaver would coexist. They say that the colossus should become more interesting (eg more extreme strengths/weaknesses) and more legible.
I know that. It was an example... My point being that there is no point reintroducing units that have no role in this game. If they wanted to make BW with better graphics they could have, but they didn't. They made a new game.
There would be a point because it would increase legibility. Colossi are bad for spectating legibility. Obviously if the colossus was replaced, its replacement would replace its role, so there would be a point. Notice I didn't say put the reaver in. I don't care if the reaver returns, but the colossus as a unit should be replaced for legibility and interest if it isn't at least improved for excitement.
On June 17 2012 14:46 Doc Daneeka wrote: if all the units they introduce in the expansions are just the brood war units that were cut from wings of liberty, i would feel pretty ripped off. they're trying to fill those roles with new game mechanics. if it doesn't work out and sc2 fails as an e-sport and blah blah blah, so be it.
This is where we disagree. I think SC2 is a blast to play (i'm silver), but it sucks to watch. But I don't want to play it, I want to watch a great RTS e-sport. I understand if you have the opposite opinion.
On June 17 2012 12:30 0neder wrote: The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? OH WAIT, the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
Woah now!
This is the exact sort of subjective statement this entire thread is filled with. That sentence I bolded is simply YOUR opinion and there's plenty of people that would disagree whole heartedly with it.
Having an opinion is fine, trying to use it to justify huge sweeping changes to core gameplay just to suit it is not ok.
My friend, with all due respect how familiar are you with BW? It was based around a handful of ridiculously overpowered splash units: Tanks, lurkers, corsairs, psionic storm, plague, and what players did to abuse them and overcome them. If you take the most exciting moments in BW gameplay, almost all of them involve splash damage.
What does OP Splash Damage like Lurkers do? It promotes ridiculous micro skill development (wouldn't you like to see more opportunities for SC2 careers to take off like marineking's? then put in more splash damage) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZNdaEM9SfI
Please tell me objectively why reducing splash damage is better for spectating excitement or players. Because objectively, we know that 'terrible terrible splash damage' is what makes SC exciting and is one of the main reasons it survived for so long. The more splash, the more risk, the more excitement. We can debate about units, but please don't say that reducing splash damage does not objectively hurt SC2's excitement for fans.
Why?
Simple.
Because Splash damage in general is 10 times as good as it ever was in Brood War because of everything's tendency in Starcraft 2 to clump together by default.
In Brood War, you could only control 12 units at a time and the AI by default would have your guys default to walking in single file, making splash damage as good as it was far less effective than weaker damage being done to a far more clumped up group of units.
On June 17 2012 15:00 Cybren wrote: The bigger problem is that almost all the new units in wol and hots are just reskins from bw, or units that had their abilities shuffled.
It seems they're exploring the same design space without pushing anything
Well said! The problem is that the new mechanics in SC2 make certain "core abilites" from BW extremely OP. Area effects really need to be adjusted (like the siege tank damage was) and some effects are totally OP in any form in SC2: Dark Swarm, Recall (from multiple units), Stasis Field. They are all abilities which dont deal damage, but which would be too dangerous to have in SC2 with the tight unit formations.
On June 17 2012 14:46 Doc Daneeka wrote: if all the units they introduce in the expansions are just the brood war units that were cut from wings of liberty, i would feel pretty ripped off. they're trying to fill those roles with new game mechanics. if it doesn't work out and sc2 fails as an e-sport and blah blah blah, so be it.
This is where we disagree. I think SC2 is a blast to play (i'm silver), but it sucks to watch. But I don't want to play it, I want to watch a great RTS e-sport. I understand if you have the opposite opinion.
i have fun with both actually. but like, i was watching a game just now, the PL? proleague? re-streamed by nanashin, i forget who was playing but it was a TvP and the micro in this game was insane and a blast to watch. the engagements were very back and forth, both armies were doing a lot of pulling out and disengaging before the battle tipped too overwhelmingly in one player's favor. a lot of SC2 is more boring to watch than BW, i'll admit, but i think it comes down to one thing: foreigners suck at micro in SC2 right now, because when koreans and especially BW pros play it's way more fun to watch. i think SC2 requires the same amount of APM as brood war, just it's less in the mechanical limitations of the user interface and pathing idiosyncracies of the units, and more in keeping up with the extremely fast pace of battle. it's like it has the opposite problem of BW, you have to split and move units away from the wrong parts of the battle more so than you need to bring them into the right parts of the battle like in BW.
edit: and yeah i think there probably are some imbalances in SC2 right now, but it's hard to tell for sure when the game is so much younger than BW what imbalances are surmountable by strategies that haven't been developed yet and what imbalances are permanently built into the game.
On June 17 2012 13:18 TechNoTrance wrote: This isn't BW 2.0. It is a different game, with different units, with different roles. You can't just throw the reaver into the protoss army, because they already have HT and colossi.
Nobody's suggesting that the colossus and reaver would coexist. They say that the colossus should become more interesting (eg more extreme strengths/weaknesses) and more legible.
I know that. It was an example... My point being that there is no point reintroducing units that have no role in this game. If they wanted to make BW with better graphics they could have, but they didn't. They made a new game.
There would be a point because it would increase legibility. Colossi are bad for spectating legibility. Obviously if the colossus was replaced, its replacement would replace its role, so there would be a point. Notice I didn't say put the reaver in. I don't care if the reaver returns, but the colossus as a unit should be replaced for legibility and interest if it isn't at least improved for excitement.
This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
On June 17 2012 15:33 fer wrote: Why would they want to reintroduce old units from an old game? Did you by chance miss that everyone is abandoning Brood War?
Your statements come across as incredibly biased, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that's what blinded you from the above.
If you're referring to me, then I am not blind. I'm a designer who wants sc2's game design to be improved. I can be objective. Just because I like BW doesn't mean I blindly want it copy-pasted into SC2.
As an example, let me highlight what I see as successes of SC2 NEW stuff creep mechanic creep drop improved nydus mechanics contaminate roach regen burrow move spine/spore crawlers warp in warp prism guardian shield void rays /mechanic graviton beam maybe the medivac reapers (pre nerf) lowering depots salvage bunker capacity planetary fortress orbital command viking banelings
That's a lot of new stuff that has been wildly successful. But there is still much to improve. Let's not be content if we want sc2 to last a decade and have two expansions to influence.
On June 17 2012 15:38 TechNoTrance wrote: This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
This thread is about the game design and units of HotS, which includes the Colossus.
hey maybe entomb could work against units instead of minerals? as in, freeze units in place, with the shield having hit points, so it's like maelstrom, but you can attack them to get rid of the shield - not sure that'd be an efficient use of apm, but you COULD use it to freeze workers in place, essentially accomplishing the same thing as the current entomb, and also being useful in battle. but maybe this would be OP, and overlap a bit with vortex. just a thought.
BUT it would basically be making the oracle into a weaker arbiter, cloak that costs energy and stasis that is breakable by attacking it. but it'd be just like BW AMIRIGHT?
hey maybe entomb could work against units instead of minerals? as in, freeze units in place, with the shield having hit points, so it's like maelstrom, but you can attack them to get rid of the shield - not sure that'd be an efficient use of apm, but you COULD use it to freeze workers in place, essentially accomplishing the same thing as the current entomb, and also being useful in battle. but maybe this would be OP, and overlap a bit with vortex. just a thought.
BUT it would basically be making the oracle into a weaker arbiter, cloak that costs energy and stasis that is breakable by attacking it. but it'd be just like BW AMIRIGHT?
I point was a more efficient way to deal with mass muta issues yes its kind of dumb and less skill but storm is soo hit and miss unless you always have them exactly where you need them and maelstrom combo'd with storm just makes soo much sense imo, i just don't like mutas lol, and leaving stalkers/archons or the magic johnson shot storms aren't always gonna work and i don't wanna you know throw a billion cannons everywhere
On June 17 2012 16:21 Samp wrote: I think that with the units like the Swarm Host, which is "kind of" like the Lurker, they should just bring back the old one from BW.
They aren't similar at all in how they function.
At all.
One has AA the other has splash.
Try using the Swarm Host like a Lurker once beta opens and you'll understand just how different the two units are. The ONLY thing they have in common is the burrow attack mechanic.
I've only read the first two pages so this argument might have been made but, I'm curious to know from people who've played them, how blizzard has dealt with this in Warcraft? I would assume, simply on a lore basis, that re-introducing a good part of the BW units would make sense, no? Did they carry over most units in WC? (I know 2 races were added from 2->3 but as far as humans/orc go?)
Edit: And by lore I mean, does the storyline from SC2 follow SC:BW time-wise? How do they explain the sudden, magic change in units out of nowhere? Vulture went out of production at space-age-Ford motors? I didn't touch the SC2 SP yet, not a fan of single player, never actually finished SC or BW even though I first played the game a few months after SC's release lol (I barely ever finish SP games, they bore me to death), so enlighten me here :o
On June 17 2012 15:33 fer wrote: Why would they want to reintroduce old units from an old game? Did you by chance miss that everyone is abandoning Brood War?
Your statements come across as incredibly biased, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that's what blinded you from the above.
If you're referring to me, then I am not blind. I'm a designer who wants sc2's game design to be improved. I can be objective. Just because I like BW doesn't mean I blindly want it copy-pasted into SC2.
As an example, let me highlight what I see as successes of SC2 NEW stuff creep mechanic creep drop improved nydus mechanics contaminate roach regen burrow move spine/spore crawlers warp in warp prism guardian shield void rays /mechanic graviton beam maybe the medivac reapers (pre nerf) lowering depots salvage bunker capacity planetary fortress orbital command viking banelings
That's a lot of new stuff that has been wildly successful. But there is still much to improve. Let's not be content if we want sc2 to last a decade and have two expansions to influence.
On June 17 2012 15:38 TechNoTrance wrote: This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
This thread is about the game design and units of HotS, which includes the Colossus.
You forgot my favorite addition: how addons work in SC2. Stuff like addon-swapping can really help tweak and optimize builds in different directions. Sniping addons is a very common harass tactic.
On June 17 2012 15:33 fer wrote: Why would they want to reintroduce old units from an old game? Did you by chance miss that everyone is abandoning Brood War?
Your statements come across as incredibly biased, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that's what blinded you from the above.
If you're referring to me, then I am not blind. I'm a designer who wants sc2's game design to be improved. I can be objective. Just because I like BW doesn't mean I blindly want it copy-pasted into SC2.
As an example, let me highlight what I see as successes of SC2 NEW stuff creep mechanic creep drop improved nydus mechanics contaminate roach regen burrow move spine/spore crawlers warp in warp prism guardian shield void rays /mechanic graviton beam maybe the medivac reapers (pre nerf) lowering depots salvage bunker capacity planetary fortress orbital command viking banelings
That's a lot of new stuff that has been wildly successful. But there is still much to improve. Let's not be content if we want sc2 to last a decade and have two expansions to influence.
On June 17 2012 15:38 TechNoTrance wrote: This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
This thread is about the game design and units of HotS, which includes the Colossus.
You forgot my favorite addition: how addons work in SC2. Stuff like addon-swapping can really help tweak and optimize builds in different directions. Sniping addons is a very common harass tactic.
I disagree about nydus, salvage, banelings, void-rays, orbital.
Nydus was much more heavily utilized in BW. In fact it was seen in late-game 100% of the time.
Salvage makes bunkers too safe.
Banelings are no where near as useful as lurkers.
Void Rays are Void Rays.
Orbital, can't kill comsat, + no decision making on when to get detection.
On June 17 2012 15:33 fer wrote: Why would they want to reintroduce old units from an old game? Did you by chance miss that everyone is abandoning Brood War?
Your statements come across as incredibly biased, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that's what blinded you from the above.
If you're referring to me, then I am not blind. I'm a designer who wants sc2's game design to be improved. I can be objective. Just because I like BW doesn't mean I blindly want it copy-pasted into SC2.
As an example, let me highlight what I see as successes of SC2 NEW stuff creep mechanic creep drop improved nydus mechanics contaminate roach regen burrow move spine/spore crawlers warp in warp prism guardian shield void rays /mechanic graviton beam maybe the medivac reapers (pre nerf) lowering depots salvage bunker capacity planetary fortress orbital command viking banelings
That's a lot of new stuff that has been wildly successful. But there is still much to improve. Let's not be content if we want sc2 to last a decade and have two expansions to influence.
On June 17 2012 15:38 TechNoTrance wrote: This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
This thread is about the game design and units of HotS, which includes the Colossus.
You forgot my favorite addition: how addons work in SC2. Stuff like addon-swapping can really help tweak and optimize builds in different directions. Sniping addons is a very common harass tactic.
I didn't list it on purpose because I feel it gives terran too much strategic flexibility and it's too easy to adapt to anything. All races should at least have to scout well, make good reads and anticipate things. All races should be able to be caught off guard.
On June 17 2012 15:33 fer wrote: Why would they want to reintroduce old units from an old game? Did you by chance miss that everyone is abandoning Brood War?
Your statements come across as incredibly biased, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that's what blinded you from the above.
If you're referring to me, then I am not blind. I'm a designer who wants sc2's game design to be improved. I can be objective. Just because I like BW doesn't mean I blindly want it copy-pasted into SC2.
As an example, let me highlight what I see as successes of SC2 NEW stuff creep mechanic creep drop improved nydus mechanics contaminate roach regen burrow move spine/spore crawlers warp in warp prism guardian shield void rays /mechanic graviton beam maybe the medivac reapers (pre nerf) lowering depots salvage bunker capacity planetary fortress orbital command viking banelings
That's a lot of new stuff that has been wildly successful. But there is still much to improve. Let's not be content if we want sc2 to last a decade and have two expansions to influence.
On June 17 2012 15:38 TechNoTrance wrote: This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
This thread is about the game design and units of HotS, which includes the Colossus.
You forgot my favorite addition: how addons work in SC2. Stuff like addon-swapping can really help tweak and optimize builds in different directions. Sniping addons is a very common harass tactic.
I disagree about nydus, salvage, banelings, void-rays, orbital.
Nydus was much more heavily utilized in BW. In fact it was seen in late-game 100% of the time.
Salvage makes bunkers too safe.
Banelings are no where near as useful as lurkers.
Void Rays are Void Rays.
Orbital, can't kill comsat, + no decision making on when to get detection.
I agree that Salvage needs a nerf, and I also think an orbital should be a killable add-on. Nydus is still good, I think maps just aren't big enough yet to promote them as much.
On June 17 2012 16:52 pb.fcnz wrote: I've only read the first two pages so this argument might have been made but, I'm curious to know from people who've played them, how blizzard has dealt with this in Warcraft? I would assume, simply on a lore basis, that re-introducing a good part of the BW units would make sense, no? Did they carry over most units in WC? (I know 2 races were added from 2->3 but as far as humans/orc go?)
Edit: And by lore I mean, does the storyline from SC2 follow SC:BW time-wise? How do they explain the sudden, magic change in units out of nowhere? Vulture went out of production at space-age-Ford motors? I didn't touch the SC2 SP yet, not a fan of single player, never actually finished SC or BW even though I first played the game a few months after SC's release lol (I barely ever finish SP games, they bore me to death), so enlighten me here :o
From Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3, the human and Orc races units undergone HUGE changes. First, all the navy units were removed. The Archer/ Axe thrower were totally removed(back up by lore). Ogre and Ogre mages for the orcs are completely gone. (back up by lore) Paladin and Archmage of the Human were turn into heroes. The air units of warcraft 2 are all removed. I know that the orc Dragons removal are according to lore, cuz the orcs lost control over the red dragon queen. I am not sure if the gryphon rider are gone cuz of lore though.
Blizzard add a tons of new units which are took out from the lore, especially spell casters, I do not think any of the spell casters in warcraft 3 are from warcraft 2 (except the new archmage is a little bit like the old mage). Basically there are only 2 units of each race are the same as warcraft 2: the footman (grunt) and the workers. Everything else is a complete overhaul. The battle system/UI/Buildings, everyhting is completely new.
On June 17 2012 12:30 0neder wrote: The reasoning that bringing a fan favorite unit back would leave it out of place and useless in SC2 is completely foolhardy. Sure, stats might be altered a bit, but it would be completely feasible. Opponents say it would require a restructuring of the game? Yet...the game is being resructured anyway because of the expansion. Hence the discussion resurfaces.
There are two kinds of Starcraft fans: those for whom the Lurker was their favorite unit in the game/favorite zerg unit (maybe more so than any other unit), and those who never heard of it and don't care if it was in the original.
Starcraft 2 needs more splash damage, not less. It's already bad enough that the Colossus can't one-shot bio and tanks have been almost completely neutered.
The community needs to start thinking like game designers (dangerous, I know, but hear me out). You all assume that because things are the way they are in WoL, that HotS has to maintain the status quo. That is not so.
Micro potential could be improved in a month or so, if they wanted to. Macro mechanics could be eliminated overnight, and the game would have more back and forth, and comebacks would be more feasible. Blizzard could declare they've decided to balance the game around very open maps, rather than using the closed off map pool as a crutch for hyper concentrated deathballs. Detection could become less of a commodity to give stealthy units like Roaches/Lurkers/Banes/DTs more excitement. Why are Ravens so rare? Because scan is now a commodity where it used to be a precious resource in BW.
The assertion that reavers and lurkers and spider mines would be imbalanced in SC2 is ridiculous for two reasons. First, it's silly because they were all imbalanced in BW and that's what made it great. Secondly, it's silly because you exaggerate the effort required to make adjustments to the units for SC2. You would either tweak the damage or fix unit spacing to not overlap, and you're good to go. I believe the SC2BW guy has even developed the inconsistent Reaver shot and vulture patrol micro himself - how hard for Blizzard's competent team could that be?
Scan a precious resource in BW? AFAIK, players like Flash scan all the time, their detection comes from missile turrets and science vessels.
On June 17 2012 15:33 fer wrote: Why would they want to reintroduce old units from an old game? Did you by chance miss that everyone is abandoning Brood War?
Your statements come across as incredibly biased, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that's what blinded you from the above.
If you're referring to me, then I am not blind. I'm a designer who wants sc2's game design to be improved. I can be objective. Just because I like BW doesn't mean I blindly want it copy-pasted into SC2.
As an example, let me highlight what I see as successes of SC2 NEW stuff creep mechanic creep drop improved nydus mechanics contaminate roach regen burrow move spine/spore crawlers warp in warp prism guardian shield void rays /mechanic graviton beam maybe the medivac reapers (pre nerf) lowering depots salvage bunker capacity planetary fortress orbital command viking banelings
That's a lot of new stuff that has been wildly successful. But there is still much to improve. Let's not be content if we want sc2 to last a decade and have two expansions to influence.
On June 17 2012 15:38 TechNoTrance wrote: This thread isn't about the validity of the colossus though.
This thread is about the game design and units of HotS, which includes the Colossus.
You forgot my favorite addition: how addons work in SC2. Stuff like addon-swapping can really help tweak and optimize builds in different directions. Sniping addons is a very common harass tactic.
I disagree about nydus, salvage, banelings, void-rays, orbital.
Nydus was much more heavily utilized in BW. In fact it was seen in late-game 100% of the time.
Salvage makes bunkers too safe.
Banelings are no where near as useful as lurkers.
Void Rays are Void Rays.
Orbital, can't kill comsat, + no decision making on when to get detection.
agreed, Nydus gets used as likea gimmick if your opponent cannons you in or some dumb shit like that only time i have ever seen it and even then 99% of the time they can fix that with spines and safely get out without the cannons even hurting them or just mass muta and make someone hate themselves
Bunkers, still waiting on that bunker patch for all we know terrans could have entire bunker economys gaining minerals interest they got mules already thats a extra source of income + Show Spoiler +
baneling can be cute sometimes most of the time herpderp or give zergs heart attacks because they micro'd their lings wrong a second too late
void rays aka flying guns
herp derp get ride of mules orbital makes sense again or limit mules per minute terrans skimp on workers anyways T_T
Perhaps the emphasis on pure BW units is wrong, but Blizzard's reluctance to re-introduce and re-use BW ideas and concepts is much more mind boggling.
Ok we get it, they can't copy paste units directly from BW to SC2, because: 1 The engine is different and require a ton more tweaks 2 Blizzard would take tons of flack for not being creative 3 Blizzard wants to create a new game with a new experience.
That is all fine and dandy, but for god sakes there is nothing stopping them from using some of the fundamental concepts that made BW successful.
And what I'm talking about are concepts of space control, micro forcing abilities and micro friendliness.
It took Blizzard 2 fucking years to realize that races need space control of some sort to make the game more interesting. In BW the spider mine, tank, dark swarm and lurker provided space control. We have the tank but a heavily nerfed version compared to BW, Blizzard is re-introducing different versions of the spider mine, the lurker and the swarm.
However space control is still problematic given that high ground mechanics are a joke compared to BW.
Also Blizzard has yet to fully realize that micro friendliness and micro forcing abilities are such a huge thing. They are on the right track with the widow mine, but at the same time they introduce boring attack move units that have no place in a game like SC2, units like the battle hellion and warhound.
Ok, I get this as well, the game engine is so smart that units clump up and it makes it hard to micro like in BW, because in BW all units benefited form micro. But that still isn't an excuse to make boring attack move units like the colossus. If the engine is so good that you can't micro like the BW way, then give units some abilities/stats that makes them benefit from micro.
Terran bio is a perfect example, it benefits a ton from micro like stutter step, splits, dodges etc. Banelings are great because they can be micro-ed to be more effective, by splitting them up to hit more stuff and they also force micro. Zealots aren't so great because they don't require much micro when they get charge, but at least they force out a lot of micro from the opponent.
I think concepts like these are what people should be most critical of when discussing BW compared to SC2, because while Blizzard has done a good job in some areas, they have done poorly in others.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Colossus, Roach, and Marauder I can sort of understand, but lings, infestors, and immortals are all really micro-heavy if used properly. Breaking tank lines, splitting vs banelings, infestor "hit and run from tank shots", and warp prism/immortal micro is all common at high levels.
Stop saying like all of that is any challenging, except marine/marauder micro everything else is a joke.
The main problem i see is that there should be added units whose effectiveness is directly proportional to the micro used, not units whose effective are independent from the micro, like the oracle. (1) Dustin says he's amazed by MKP's marine micro. Well why doesn't he stop adding colossus like units like the warhound or the oracle, which require no micro skill compared with marine splitting?
It's true that mechanical-like actions like there were in BW should be removed, but having 1-click units like the oracle and the warhound even for spectators is not very fun to watch. They may look cool at first, but when the novelty disappears the skill cap is so low, it's always the same thing and it quickly gets boring.
(1) though the oracle not only is it micro-less, it also makes a skill your opponent only has one option to do. Attack the walls on the minerals (1a). There's no micro involved on both fronts, and it doesn't even look cool so the oracle is the epitome of a boring unit.
All i know is i feel sorry for Protoss players, BW Protoss looks really good to play with lots of really interesting units.
In SC2 the Zealot is a joke meatshield, the Collossus is dismal 1a unit , the Carrier is a waste of gas , Templer storm is now just a "breeze", the stalker is a shadow of the dragoon..
This whole race has been reduced to a dismal game to watch \ play where a protoss has to sit in his base untill he gets the deathball before they can move out, all because Warp gate is a disaster to balance
HOTS will be great fun for Zerg ands Terran, but i really fear for Protoss. The new units\abilities dont inspire at all except the new harras unit ..which guess what ? its an Arbitor from BW
People are basically hypocrites. They say they want maps like BW, units like BW, even players from BW, but when you ask why they don't just watch/play BW they don't want to. It's like a woman who always complains that her new boyfriend isn't like her old one that she dumped.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move.
Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting.
This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's.
I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move.
Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting.
This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's.
I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races.
Your problem is that you're not paying close enough attention to how much control is actually going on in Starcraft 2 because it's happening so fast you can't follow it.
Starcraft 2 is faster paced than Brood War. Armies are built quicker, and can be destroyed even quicker than that. That said, there's a TON of control required at the pro level, and the truth is that people like you are either just missing it because it's happening too fast for you to follow it or you're purposefully neglecting it for the sake of argument.
I'll give you some examples.
1. Forcing siege tank volleys with expendable units in order to make charging a tank line more effective.
2. Baneling landmines
3. hold position micro of any sort especially involving the early game with workers.
4. Utilizing the factory in TvP to force charge out of Zealots or to block off the ramp in entombed valley.
5. Medivac/Prism load unload micro.
6. Ghost vs High Templar vs Infestor etc. etc.
Some of those examples like the 1 and 4 are subtle, others like 6 are points of interest for every match up and get a lot of coverage but in all cases control is JUST as important in SC2 as it was in Brood War, the difference is that the game itself is so fast paced that oftentimes the best control is hard to see amidst all the graphical violence that goes on during SC2 battles. Posts like yours just tend to focus on ONE thing about SC2 that you don't like and use that for your reasoning for why the game is fundamentally flawed.
Why are some musicians so reluctant to do the same album over and over again, but still stick to some of their trademark styles? Obviously, they want to do something new while still being recognizable and that's good.
The swarm host is quite different from the lurker and the brood lord. Lurker and BL fire when in range as all other units, the SH lays a foundation for attack waves which is new and could create a whole new dynamic for zerg attacks.
Just using BW units would be unbelievably lame and would raise the question whether they've lost all their creativity and even how they justify the price for SC2.
On June 17 2012 18:58 FrogOfWar wrote: Why are some musicians so reluctant to do the same album over and over again, but still stick to some of their trademark styles? Obviously, they want to do something new while still being recognizable and that's good.
The swarm host is quite different from the lurker and the brood lord. Lurker and BL fire when in range as all other units, the SH lays a foundation for attack waves which is new and could create a whole new dynamic for zerg attacks.
Just using BW units would be unbelievably lame and would raise the question whether they've lost all their creativity and even how they justify the price for SC2.
DotA 2 is just a remade DotA, nobody is complaining about creativity because its a good game, granted it's free. 50-60$ for a game IS pretty steep I guess.
well... maybe the people who are die hard bw players like your self. As far as i know the demographic witin the sc2 player base is only made up by a minority bw hardcore players.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
Colossus, Roach, and Marauder I can sort of understand, but lings, infestors, and immortals are all really micro-heavy if used properly. Breaking tank lines, splitting vs banelings, infestor "hit and run from tank shots", and warp prism/immortal micro is all common at high levels.
Stop saying like all of that is any challenging, except marine/marauder micro everything else is a joke.
Bullshit.
Have you ever watched ling baneling wars in ZvZ?
Even the best zergs in the world aren't remotely close to the micro control of lings/banelings
I Think Blizzard got really lucky with Broodwar. The original team involved had real talent and also had a good slice of luck in producing it. This combined with a community especally in Korean has kept it alive all these years.
There is a saying "if it isnt broke, dont fix it", the additional units added to SC2 dont really inspire to be honest.
TV broadcasting requires good SFX these days and thats the biggest thing thats selling SC2. If broodwar had supped up graphics and sound would we see Kespa making the trasition to SC2, thats the question?
I can understand the current SC2 team wanting to add their own units, but i have havent seen much from them that indicates they have the creativity to a good job
Oh... again the BW butthurts. Close this thread please, it does not contribute anything besides giving an opportunity for the vocal minority of "BW hardcores" to whine about how much of a shitty game SCII is.
SCII did not kill BW, it's age did and it's lack of foreign scene. Now that scene develops in a way it had never developed for BW and you want to bitch about it? Finally RTS e-sports are starting to become more mainstream in the west and you bitch about it? Yes, the ability to reach platinum with macro and an a-move with 60 apm makes SCII definately more accesible. And you bitch about it? Still pros use 300 (SCII apm) and it's not close enough to being skill-capped, every observer can see points of vulnerability that could have been exploited, army movements that could have been done, units that could have been controlled better, strategies that could have been used. And you bitch about a low skill-cap? FFS, go grab an MLG title if the skill cap is so low.
The thread has derailed far from it's title and I believe it would be justified to take it down. The OP wanted to discuss about the re-introduction of BW units and even from the first page the discussion went downhill. How less micro friendly is SCII, how much people hate infestors/forcefields, how much a-moving there is and a DOTA2 discussion. Very few posts stayed on topic and actually discussed the introduction of some BW-units in HotS.
We get it. You like BW. Go play it. And stop whining every chance you get. You are a MINORITY. Get over it.
On June 17 2012 18:29 BrosephBrostar wrote: People are basically hypocrites. They say they want maps like BW, units like BW, even players from BW, but when you ask why they don't just watch/play BW they don't want to. It's like a woman who always complains that her new boyfriend isn't like her old one that she dumped.
We do... But blizzard have tried to kill BW for years and finally succeeded. Now we want a game that's actually worthy of BW. Currently, SC2 is not. And giving SC2 engine's flaws as a reason for not introducing successful BW concepts (e.g. units clumping up to an extreme, which they can easily fix...). It's idiotic of blizzard to build their whole game around crappy engine, which forces them to introduce more crappy changes like nerfing all sorts of spells and units.
The fact that they think their new pathing algorythm is somehow "superior" to BW, WC3, CoH, AoX or many other RTS games that don't have clumping, is beyond ridiculous. That's as if Quake's developer said "our new engine is so much superior to the old one - we've finally gotten rid of starfe jumping, rocket jumping and so on".
There's a difference between bugs and "unintended features". Just because blizzard did not intend for something to exist, does not mean they have to get rid of it. Void Ray fazing is a prime example of that. It had SO MUCH potential. But blizzard doesn't get it. Their "moving shot" proves that.
On June 17 2012 18:32 Guamshin wrote: I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move.
Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting.
This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's.
I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races.
Really, you are not kidding me? Statements like that goes to show to what degenerate conservatism some BW fans adhere to. Just because it creates the need for more APM and thus players of a higher ´skill´. Pfff, in BW youŕe constantly fighting the limitations of the game engine. It has been balanced around those limitations which makes it great, but that doesnt mean it would be acceptable in the current RTS environment. Lots and lots of new players would be really turned off to something they are so used to in say the Command and Conquer games, and every reviewer would piss on Blizzards face. The majority of the SC2 money and support comes from the new players. The BW community lingers too much in some kind of feeling of self-importance.
Microing needless stuff such as harvesters or tricks like Void ray fazing may be cool to some of you, but to me and most people with a common sense they are needless bugs. ´hey to become good at this game you have to practice to repeat this countless times for a minimal advantage´. I agree with you that units like the Colossus dont really add to the variety of battling in SC2, but dont blame the game mechanics on it.
On June 17 2012 16:52 pb.fcnz wrote: I've only read the first two pages so this argument might have been made but, I'm curious to know from people who've played them, how blizzard has dealt with this in Warcraft? I would assume, simply on a lore basis, that re-introducing a good part of the BW units would make sense, no? Did they carry over most units in WC? (I know 2 races were added from 2->3 but as far as humans/orc go?)
Edit: And by lore I mean, does the storyline from SC2 follow SC:BW time-wise? How do they explain the sudden, magic change in units out of nowhere? Vulture went out of production at space-age-Ford motors? I didn't touch the SC2 SP yet, not a fan of single player, never actually finished SC or BW even though I first played the game a few months after SC's release lol (I barely ever finish SP games, they bore me to death), so enlighten me here :o
From Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3, the human and Orc races units undergone HUGE changes. First, all the navy units were removed. The Archer/ Axe thrower were totally removed(back up by lore). Ogre and Ogre mages for the orcs are completely gone. (back up by lore) Paladin and Archmage of the Human were turn into heroes. The air units of warcraft 2 are all removed. I know that the orc Dragons removal are according to lore, cuz the orcs lost control over the red dragon queen. I am not sure if the gryphon rider are gone cuz of lore though.
Blizzard add a tons of new units which are took out from the lore, especially spell casters, I do not think any of the spell casters in warcraft 3 are from warcraft 2 (except the new archmage is a little bit like the old mage). Basically there are only 2 units of each race are the same as warcraft 2: the footman (grunt) and the workers. Everything else is a complete overhaul. The battle system/UI/Buildings, everyhting is completely new.
I used to dislike warcraft 3 for being so different, but after following starcraft 2 I really appreciate it. I wonder what kind of discussion we would be having if starcraft 2 was as different from starcraft 1 as warcraft 3 was compared to warcraft 2.
On June 17 2012 19:45 Trivmvirate wrote: Microing needless stuff such as harvesters or tricks like Void ray fazing may be cool to some of you, but to me and most people with a common sense its a bug.
Just like skiing in tribes or rocket jumping in quake or combos in street fighter right?
There's no way to win if he brings back Brood War units, ppl would just complain "can't they come up with their own stuff instead of just ripping off brood war?" We already have a bunch of units back from BW in sc2 or very similar versions of BW units. Let them bring in new stuff
On June 17 2012 18:29 BrosephBrostar wrote: People are basically hypocrites. They say they want maps like BW, units like BW, even players from BW, but when you ask why they don't just watch/play BW they don't want to. It's like a woman who always complains that her new boyfriend isn't like her old one that she dumped.
We do... But blizzard have tried to kill BW for years and finally succeeded. Now we want a game that's actually worthy of BW. Currently, SC2 is not. And giving SC2 engine's flaws as a reason for not introducing successful BW concepts (e.g. units clumping up to an extreme, which they can easily fix...). It's idiotic of blizzard to build their whole game around crappy engine, which forces them to introduce more crappy changes like nerfing all sorts of spells and units.
The fact that they think their new pathing algorythm is somehow "superior" to BW, WC3, CoH, AoX or many other RTS games that don't have clumping, is beyond ridiculous. That's as if Quake's developer said "our new engine is so much superior to the old one - we've finally gotten rid of starfe jumping, rocket jumping and so on".
There's a difference between bugs and "unintended features". Just because blizzard did not intend for something to exist, does not mean they have to get rid of it. Void Ray fazing is a prime example of that. It had SO MUCH potential. But blizzard doesn't get it. Their "moving shot" proves that.
Absolutely agree. I get the impression game designers these days never even played video games. If the current design team made Quake 3 Im sure they would hotfix strafe and rocket jumping right away because it wasnt something they intended.
That reminds of person I once met who was a 40 year old game designer. It was about the time Doom 3 came out and he was convinced Doom 3 is the best game ever made, reason being its engine that was a monster at that time. He didnt give two shits about gameplay and things like that, he was obssesed solely with how much polygons the engine was able to animate. I asked him what are his toughts about games like BW, Sacrifice ( if anyone heard about that one, one of my favorite gamea), Jedi Outcast, Homeworld and such and he said they are good but very inferior to Doom 3. He dissmised what I had to say about creativity, lore and gameplay because Im not a programmer or a game designer and I couldnt possibly know anything about that. He also didnt think much of the players them selves and blamed them a lot for not being able to appreciate how amazing Doom 3 was ( similar to the interview about Bnet 2.0 when they say its a lot more complex and superior system to the old one but noone is appreciating that).
Im not saying Dustin Browder fits this description, Im sure he doesnt, but Im very very sure game designers and us have a fundamentally different views and approach to games. Id say they have a distorted sense of reality more or less.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Would they really get flamed for bringing exact copies? I mean look at dota 2, it is exactly the same as dota 1, just better graphics, nobody is flaming them for lack of creativity.
Dota 2 is not a sequel, It's a standalone version of DotA. LoL and HoN are like the Sc2s of Dota.
I don't know what you mean when you say it's not a sequel but a standalone version. One thing is certain, the creators of dota wanted to make dota with better graphics (i.e dota 2) as opposed to adding creativity (hon and lol) because the game is very well balanced. Not saying that hon or lol isn't well balanced, but my point is, a game does not need to have new units to be popular. It's possible that if they simply made sc2 as bw with better graphics, it might have been just as successful if not more so. Of course, all this is under the assumption (possibly false, i dunno) that valve's efforts are aimed at getting fresh new blood for dota 2, instead of just targeting fans of dota 1 and that alot of the viewers that currently watch and play dota 2 are new players.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Would they really get flamed for bringing exact copies? I mean look at dota 2, it is exactly the same as dota 1, just better graphics, nobody is flaming them for lack of creativity.
Dota 2 is not a sequel, It's a standalone version of DotA. LoL and HoN are like the Sc2s of Dota.
I don't know what you mean when you say it's not a sequel but a standalone version. One thing is certain, the creators of dota wanted to make dota with better graphics (i.e dota 2) as opposed to adding creativity (hon and lol) because the game is very well balanced. Not saying that hon or lol isn't well balanced, but my point is, a game does not need to have new units to be popular. It's possible that if they simply made sc2 as bw with better graphics, it might have been just as successful if not more so. Of course, all this is under the assumption (possibly false, i dunno) that valve's efforts are aimed at getting fresh new blood for dota 2, instead of just targeting fans of dota 1 and that alot of the viewers that currently watch and play dota 2 are new players.
At the same time, Valve isn't pretending to be making a new game with DotA 2: them and Icefrog are perfectly fine with just remaking the original without the limitations of WC3's engine. That isn't what Blizzard is doing with SC2. They're trying to make a sequel to Brood War, not just a remake.
On June 17 2012 18:29 BrosephBrostar wrote: People are basically hypocrites. They say they want maps like BW, units like BW, even players from BW, but when you ask why they don't just watch/play BW they don't want to. It's like a woman who always complains that her new boyfriend isn't like her old one that she dumped.
We do... But blizzard have tried to kill BW for years and finally succeeded. Now we want a game that's actually worthy of BW. Currently, SC2 is not. And giving SC2 engine's flaws as a reason for not introducing successful BW concepts (e.g. units clumping up to an extreme, which they can easily fix...). It's idiotic of blizzard to build their whole game around crappy engine, which forces them to introduce more crappy changes like nerfing all sorts of spells and units.
The fact that they think their new pathing algorythm is somehow "superior" to BW, WC3, CoH, AoX or many other RTS games that don't have clumping, is beyond ridiculous. That's as if Quake's developer said "our new engine is so much superior to the old one - we've finally gotten rid of starfe jumping, rocket jumping and so on".
There's a difference between bugs and "unintended features". Just because blizzard did not intend for something to exist, does not mean they have to get rid of it. Void Ray fazing is a prime example of that. It had SO MUCH potential. But blizzard doesn't get it. Their "moving shot" proves that.
You aren't going to win this argument.
I don't know why you're bothering. You're not going to be happy until the engine is entirely overhauled. That isn't happening.
I know to people like you, the annoying parts of SC1's interface like the terrible pathing that you had to constantly babysit or your units would end up lost around the map somehow makes the game superior because it required more of what you called skill just to overcome flaws in the engine in order to actually play the game.
That game isn't coming back. If you want to have a legitimate discussion about units that's one thing but don't start bitching that the engine is different, not worse, but different and that for whatever reason means the game isn't worth ever playing.
If that's the kind of opinion you have, just keep it to yourself because it doesn't help anyone else or further any discussion.
I think the major mistake blizzard made was this : They started to make SC2 by keeping some unremovable units, and removed some others that where the player's favorite. (I was 10 when I was playing broodwar and my nickname was "Lixo_the_Lurker") I think they should have instead created an exact copy of broodwar, and then IMPROVED certain units.
For me the Broodlord is a plain improvement from the devourer, but where went the Lurker and the Defiler, which where the real elite of the zerg armies ? They didn't even get remplaced, they where plain removed. That's gonna sound silly but if we look at it "story wise", why would the swarm, after its victory, disapear 5 years to come back weakened, without the broods that made them win in the first place ?
It's way too late now, but I think Wings of Liberty should have been a improved copy of Brood War, and Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void bring many new units to it.
On June 17 2012 20:31 Lixo wrote: I think the major mistake blizzard made was this : They started to make SC2 by keeping some unremovable units, and removed some others that where the player's favorite. (I was 10 when I was playing broodwar and my nickname was "Lixo_the_Lurker") I think they should have instead created an exact copy of broodwar, and then IMPROVED certain units.
For me the Broodlord is a plain improvement from the devourer, but where went the Lurker and the Defiler, which where the real elite of the zerg armies ? They didn't even get remplaced, they where plain removed. That's gonna sound silly but if we look at it "story wise", why would the swarm, after its victory, disapear 5 years to come back weakened, without the broods that made them win in the first place ?
It's way too late now, but I think Wings of Liberty should have been a improved copy of Brood War, and Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void bring many new units to it.
Well from a story perspective the only thing that matters is the campaign.
You can guarantee that Lurkers will be in the HOTS campaign just like Wraiths, Goliaths, Medics and Firebats were for Terrans.
The sad reason that Lurkers just cannot exist in SC2 is because of Banelings.
can you imagine a game where Lurkers Banelings AND Infestors are all on the field at once? It'd just be too ridiculous.
In the case of the Lurker and Reaver they got replaced by new units that covered their role. The Defiler also to a lesser extent got replaced by the Infestor similarly the way the Science vessel did by the Raven.
There's other units that have this same thing going on. Dragoons and Stalkers, Goliaths and Vikings/Thors, Firebats and Hellions, Vultures and Hellions, Corsair and Phoenix, Wraith and Banshee, Void Ray and Scout,
Blizz added new units that in most situations mirrored their old counterparts enough that they were immediately accepted. in the case of the Collosus and Reaver and Baneling and Lurker, people aren't satisfied in the same way because of how different the units are yet for all intents and purposes they fulfill the same role.
I understand the argument against the Collosus believe me I do, it hurts a lot of potential strategies and single handedly breaks PvP late game because of how strong it is, but that's why Zerg is getting almost a dedicated anti-collosus unit in the Viper and Protoss in the Tempest.
The same thing happened in Brood War if you don't remember. Both Terrans and Protoss got new units seemingly designed with the sole purpose of killing Mutalisks.
Luckily HotS is getting more BW like units, wich are actually interesting instead of just being "cool" like in WoL. Reintroducing all those units would just be boring. We already know them, I want to see new ones.
So that no more "Hydralisk sucks, it was a good unit in BW." or "I want good old microable carrier back" syndrome happens. No re-introduction, no such criticism. Smart move from Dustin Browder.
While the lurker can be argued to being unable to fit well into SC2, I feel that lurker drops bring a dynamic into the game which SC2 is sorely lacking. Dropping them to attack a mineral line while burrowed (needing detection to kill) actually spreads out the game tremendously and brings the action in every part of the map feel, and honestly, zerg simply do not have any form of harrassment option other than zergling runbys in SC2 (infestors work well, but their cost often makes it very risky).
I doubt that the swarm host can bring this sort of play back (since the spawns can be killed and have no aoe) and will mostly be used for grinding down on the frontlines like the Broodlords.
On June 17 2012 18:29 BrosephBrostar wrote: People are basically hypocrites. They say they want maps like BW, units like BW, even players from BW, but when you ask why they don't just watch/play BW they don't want to. It's like a woman who always complains that her new boyfriend isn't like her old one that she dumped.
We do... But blizzard have tried to kill BW for years and finally succeeded. Now we want a game that's actually worthy of BW. Currently, SC2 is not. And giving SC2 engine's flaws as a reason for not introducing successful BW concepts (e.g. units clumping up to an extreme, which they can easily fix...). It's idiotic of blizzard to build their whole game around crappy engine, which forces them to introduce more crappy changes like nerfing all sorts of spells and units.
The fact that they think their new pathing algorythm is somehow "superior" to BW, WC3, CoH, AoX or many other RTS games that don't have clumping, is beyond ridiculous. That's as if Quake's developer said "our new engine is so much superior to the old one - we've finally gotten rid of starfe jumping, rocket jumping and so on".
There's a difference between bugs and "unintended features". Just because blizzard did not intend for something to exist, does not mean they have to get rid of it. Void Ray fazing is a prime example of that. It had SO MUCH potential. But blizzard doesn't get it. Their "moving shot" proves that.
You aren't going to win this argument.
I don't know why you're bothering. You're not going to be happy until the engine is entirely overhauled. That isn't happening.
I know to people like you, the annoying parts of SC1's interface like the terrible pathing that you had to constantly babysit or your units would end up lost around the map somehow makes the game superior because it required more of what you called skill just to overcome flaws in the engine in order to actually play the game.
That game isn't coming back. If you want to have a legitimate discussion about units that's one thing but don't start bitching that the engine is different, not worse, but different and that for whatever reason means the game isn't worth ever playing.
If that's the kind of opinion you have, just keep it to yourself because it doesn't help anyone else or further any discussion.
And how exactly do you know I'm not going to be satisfied until they completely overhaul the engine? The engine is worse. There's only a handful of units that reward micro, while in BW nearly all of them did. And by micro I don't mean spamming spells (that's one of the least demanding aspects of micro). Most of the time, attempting to micro your units can actually be detrimental, the engine/AI does the job better. This is something people have complained about since hands-on alpha...
Fixing unit clumping does not need complete engine overhaul. It's even been fixed in the map editor in under a week by some people. Unit clumping is one of the key factors behind several of the biggest issues in SC2's gameplay, deathballs and blizzard having to severaly nerf many spells and units among other things.
Since because of HotS blizzard is going to have to completely rebalance the game anyway, there's no excuse for them not to fix unit clumping instead of balancing the game around flawed engine again...
Also, did you ever play BW beyond singleplayer? People like you constantly blow out of proportion BW pathing's deficiencies. There were maybe a dozen situations where I've got frustrated with pathing, and my RTS history is Generals -> WC3 -> DoW -> AoX -> BW, so don't tell me I'm just used to "terrible pathing".
And you don't have to "downgrade" SC2's pathing/engine to BW level. Armies of Exigo's pathing worked perfectly and somehow did not cause units to clump. I've played that game extensively and never experienced any issues.
Blizzard can easily fix the most glaring issues in SC2 by introducing several key concepts from BW (e.g. space control units, lack of unit clumping, units rewarding micro, etc.), but they're too proud to admit many of their design decisions were terrible.
On June 17 2012 21:18 Woizit wrote: While the lurker can be argued to being unable to fit well into SC2, I feel that lurker drops bring a dynamic into the game which SC2 is sorely lacking. Dropping them to attack a mineral line while burrowed (needing detection to kill) actually spreads out the game tremendously and brings the action in every part of the map feel, and honestly, zerg simply do not have any form of harrassment option other than zergling runbys in SC2 (infestors work well, but their cost often makes it very risky).
I doubt that the swarm host can bring this sort of play back (since the spawns can be killed and have no aoe) and will mostly be used for grinding down on the frontlines like the Broodlords.
Mutalisks?!
Zerg don't have harassment options when they have the single best harassment unit in the game? Wut?
On June 17 2012 21:18 Woizit wrote: While the lurker can be argued to being unable to fit well into SC2, I feel that lurker drops bring a dynamic into the game which SC2 is sorely lacking. Dropping them to attack a mineral line while burrowed (needing detection to kill) actually spreads out the game tremendously and brings the action in every part of the map feel, and honestly, zerg simply do not have any form of harrassment option other than zergling runbys in SC2 (infestors work well, but their cost often makes it very risky).
I doubt that the swarm host can bring this sort of play back (since the spawns can be killed and have no aoe) and will mostly be used for grinding down on the frontlines like the Broodlords.
Mutalisks?!
Zerg don't have harassment options when they have the single best harassment unit in the game? Wut?
Well, pardon me for being not specific enough, but I refer to cheap harrassment, Mutalisks require quite some massing to be effective. In addition, one of my points of the dynamics lurker drops can bring is spreading out play over the map, and mutas usually are used in a single stack and at most two for harrassing.
On June 17 2012 20:54 DoctorPhil wrote: Luckily HotS is getting more BW like units, wich are actually interesting instead of just being "cool" like in WoL. Reintroducing all those units would just be boring. We already know them, I want to see new ones.
On June 17 2012 21:18 Woizit wrote: While the lurker can be argued to being unable to fit well into SC2, I feel that lurker drops bring a dynamic into the game which SC2 is sorely lacking. Dropping them to attack a mineral line while burrowed (needing detection to kill) actually spreads out the game tremendously and brings the action in every part of the map feel, and honestly, zerg simply do not have any form of harrassment option other than zergling runbys in SC2 (infestors work well, but their cost often makes it very risky).
I doubt that the swarm host can bring this sort of play back (since the spawns can be killed and have no aoe) and will mostly be used for grinding down on the frontlines like the Broodlords.
Mutalisks?!
Zerg don't have harassment options when they have the single best harassment unit in the game? Wut?
Well, pardon me for being not specific enough, but I refer to cheap harrassment, Mutalisks require quite some massing to be effective. In addition, one of my points of the dynamics lurker drops can bring is spreading out play over the map, and mutas usually are used in a single stack and at most two for harrassing.
Now i'm confused.
You're referring to cheap harassment and then refer to Lurker drops, which weren't cheap at all. 400/400 in just Lurker evolution and Ventral sacs alone. That used to be my go-to strat for ZvZ in Brood War, I know how expensive that was to pull off.
In SC2 between Zergling runbys, the most inexpensive harassment tool in the game, Mutalisks, Infestor Death Squads, Nydus Worms and Overlord drops, Zerg has a huge variety of harassment options with a huge variety of risk/rewards and costs involved.You could even include Overseer's contaminate in there if you wanted to.
In HOTS you'll have plenty of opportunity also to utilize the Swarm Host as an additional harassment tool, considering the Locusts are free if you can position a couple of Swarm Hosts in range of an expansion you can harass it constantly until troops come by to clear out the Swarm Hosts.
On June 17 2012 20:54 DoctorPhil wrote: Luckily HotS is getting more BW like units, wich are actually interesting instead of just being "cool" like in WoL. Reintroducing all those units would just be boring. We already know them, I want to see new ones.
Tempest
Warhound
Transforming 1a2a3a Hellion
Agreed on the last two, but I really like the tempest. 22 range is like the crazy stuff that made BW fun to watch. The tempest is not an attack move unit, it's dps is too bad for that.It forces engagements and snipes important units. I find that an interesting unit.
On June 17 2012 20:54 DoctorPhil wrote: Luckily HotS is getting more BW like units, wich are actually interesting instead of just being "cool" like in WoL. Reintroducing all those units would just be boring. We already know them, I want to see new ones.
Tempest
Warhound
Transforming 1a2a3a Hellion
Agreed on the last two, but I really like the tempest. 22 range is like the crazy stuff that made BW fun to watch. The tempest is not an attack move unit, it's dps is too bad for that.It forces engagements and snipes important units. I find that an interesting unit.
The Hellion is actually a lot less 1a than people are giving it credit for. It's easy to look at it without playing with it and make that judgement but when I played with it at the demo, I found that having a mech unit mineral dump that was both a harassment unit and melee fighter in one gives it a ton of strategic potential.
On June 17 2012 21:18 Woizit wrote: While the lurker can be argued to being unable to fit well into SC2, I feel that lurker drops bring a dynamic into the game which SC2 is sorely lacking. Dropping them to attack a mineral line while burrowed (needing detection to kill) actually spreads out the game tremendously and brings the action in every part of the map feel, and honestly, zerg simply do not have any form of harrassment option other than zergling runbys in SC2 (infestors work well, but their cost often makes it very risky).
I doubt that the swarm host can bring this sort of play back (since the spawns can be killed and have no aoe) and will mostly be used for grinding down on the frontlines like the Broodlords.
Mutalisks?!
Zerg don't have harassment options when they have the single best harassment unit in the game? Wut?
Well, pardon me for being not specific enough, but I refer to cheap harrassment, Mutalisks require quite some massing to be effective. In addition, one of my points of the dynamics lurker drops can bring is spreading out play over the map, and mutas usually are used in a single stack and at most two for harrassing.
Now i'm confused.
You're referring to cheap harassment and then refer to Lurker drops, which weren't cheap at all. 400/400 in just Lurker evolution and Ventral sacs alone. That used to be my go-to strat for ZvZ in Brood War, I know how expensive that was to pull off.
Between Zergling runbys, the most inexpensive harassment tool in the game, Mutalisks, Infestor Death Squads, Nydus Worms and Overlord drops, Zerg has a huge variety of harassment options with a huge variety of risk/rewards and costs involved.
You could even include Overseer's contaminate in there if you wanted to.
I suppose part of the cost is negated due to the prevalance of hydralisks in BW, which makes it have less deviation in tech. Nydus is hardly worthwhile SC2, Infestor squads are interesting, but are usually much more efficient being with the main army than being alone (not to mention again than you actually need a "squad"). I understand it's a very different game, I'm just pointing out that's one aspect of harrassment that's unique and missing in SC2.
On June 17 2012 21:18 Woizit wrote: While the lurker can be argued to being unable to fit well into SC2, I feel that lurker drops bring a dynamic into the game which SC2 is sorely lacking. Dropping them to attack a mineral line while burrowed (needing detection to kill) actually spreads out the game tremendously and brings the action in every part of the map feel, and honestly, zerg simply do not have any form of harrassment option other than zergling runbys in SC2 (infestors work well, but their cost often makes it very risky).
I doubt that the swarm host can bring this sort of play back (since the spawns can be killed and have no aoe) and will mostly be used for grinding down on the frontlines like the Broodlords.
Mutalisks?!
Zerg don't have harassment options when they have the single best harassment unit in the game? Wut?
Well, pardon me for being not specific enough, but I refer to cheap harrassment, Mutalisks require quite some massing to be effective. In addition, one of my points of the dynamics lurker drops can bring is spreading out play over the map, and mutas usually are used in a single stack and at most two for harrassing.
Now i'm confused.
You're referring to cheap harassment and then refer to Lurker drops, which weren't cheap at all. 400/400 in just Lurker evolution and Ventral sacs alone. That used to be my go-to strat for ZvZ in Brood War, I know how expensive that was to pull off.
Between Zergling runbys, the most inexpensive harassment tool in the game, Mutalisks, Infestor Death Squads, Nydus Worms and Overlord drops, Zerg has a huge variety of harassment options with a huge variety of risk/rewards and costs involved.
You could even include Overseer's contaminate in there if you wanted to.
I suppose part of the cost is negated due to the prevalance of hydralisks in BW, which makes it have less deviation in tech. Nydus is hardly worthwhile SC2, Infestor squads are interesting, but are usually much more efficient being with the main army than being alone (not to mention again than you actually need a "squad"). I understand it's a very different game, I'm just pointing out that's one aspect of harrassment that's unique and missing in SC2.
Nydus Worms are actually incredibly worthwhile in SC2, especially with the maps becoming larger and larger and the expansions more and more spread out. Nydus Worms just have a bad stigma of uselessness that carried over from the early seasons where the tiny maps did in fact make them useless, so most Zergs don't even bother with them.
I've been watching a lot of streams lately as well as games in Customs and elsewhere of Zergs beginning to experiment with the Nydus Worm again and I'm pretty convinced that it's going to make a reappearance in the meta game soon especially against Protoss.
As far as your comment about infestor hit squads go, efficiency is very hard to judge when looking at harassment units. A couple infestors can completely wipe out a mineral line, and get away cleanly if they aren't reacted to quickly enough, but conversely they can be picked off when they drop their first IT's and be a wasted investment, the same can be said for Storm Drops, Marine Drops, Cloaked Banshees, DTs or even Hellions.
On June 17 2012 20:54 DoctorPhil wrote: Luckily HotS is getting more BW like units, wich are actually interesting instead of just being "cool" like in WoL. Reintroducing all those units would just be boring. We already know them, I want to see new ones.
Tempest
Warhound
Transforming 1a2a3a Hellion
Agreed on the last two, but I really like the tempest. 22 range is like the crazy stuff that made BW fun to watch. The tempest is not an attack move unit, it's dps is too bad for that.It forces engagements and snipes important units. I find that an interesting unit.
I agree. The attack speed of the Tempest makes up for the range and its damage. It's a surgical (though not very agile), artillery figther, not an a-move unit you make 5-10 of. The Tempest will create room for some entertaining, strategic options. I think it's cool.
Furthermore it'll encourage Spire tech in ZvP more often. Heart of the Swarm to me sounds like an era in which the dominant force is a mix of flying casters, Hydralisks and Corrupters. If only Blizzard gave the Corrupter a secondary purpose. I find it sad that there are units like the Corrupter which only purpose is to eliminate air units. Same goes for the Hellion in Wings of Liberty, although with the new Battle Mode (or whatever it's called) the Hellion will make room for additional ways to approach enemy compositions.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move.
Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting.
This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's.
I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races.
I can't take this thread seriously after this post.
why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
I'm talking about units, not the interface. While I do think MBS etc. detract from the breadth of skill and lower the skill ceiling, I understand that the most important elements are unit, their dynamics, and their spacing.
On June 17 2012 20:39 Vindicare605 wrote: The sad reason that Lurkers just cannot exist in SC2 is because of Banelings.
That's like saying siege tanks can't exist because hellions do splash too. Banelings are melee suicide units, lurkers are ranged stealth units, completely different roles, and one is more useful and cost efficient later in the game.
On June 17 2012 01:12 WArped wrote: People moan no matter what happens. SC2 is already pretty successful as an eSport but they also gave to cater for different people, new shiny units mean more casual sales, which is potentially more people watching SC2. I am totally fine with them not adding broodwar units as long as they improve the game as a spectators perspective in some way.
So basically you only care about Blizzard's financial success and not the depth of the game itself? People with mindsets like you are the reason SC2 turned out the way it did.
No, that isn't my opinion at all, I don't give two shits about their financial success, that is just how they think. I want the best game possible from a spectators point of view, more micro, more strategy that requires more skill to use well. If the new units give me that in some way, I'll be fine with them not adding bw units.
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
The OP asked this question "Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?"
Hes not a BW die hard, but someone who has stumbled on the game via SC2.
SC2 interface is excellent along with the pathing and graphics\ sounds. I think you are missing the point by the OP.
Either way this thread should be closed, there is nothing constructive to be had from it
On June 17 2012 01:12 WArped wrote: People moan no matter what happens. SC2 is already pretty successful as an eSport but they also gave to cater for different people, new shiny units mean more casual sales, which is potentially more people watching SC2. I am totally fine with them not adding broodwar units as long as they improve the game as a spectators perspective in some way.
So basically you only care about Blizzard's financial success and not the depth of the game itself? People with mindsets like you are the reason SC2 turned out the way it did.
No, that isn't my opinion at all, I don't give two shits about their financial success, that is just how they think. I want the best game possible from a spectators point of view, more micro, more strategy that requires more skill to use well. If the new units give me that in some way, I'll be fine with them not adding bw units.
More micro and more strategy can only be achieved by taking away some of the awesome new stuff in SC2 compared to BW. The "unlimited unit selection" and the perfect unit movement really kill a lot of the positional strategic play. Siege tanks spread out over a wider area and some bunkers and turrets spread inbetween them is something that is pointless in SC2 due to the overwhelming power of a tight attacking force. To get such a strategic gameplay back you have to cut back on the ease of control which SC2 allows atm. In addition the unit movement has to be changed in such a way that they arent packed as tight as they are right now. This has been sufficiently discussed already a year ago. Sadly Blizzard doesnt listen. More micro and better control requires that the battles dont go so fast and the troops arent controlled as easily.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
The OP asked this question "Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?"
Hes not a BW die hard, but someone who has stumbled on the game via SC2.
SC2 interface is excellent along with the pathing and graphics\ sounds. I think you are missing the point by the OP.
Either way this thread should be closed, there is nothing constructive to be had from it
i disagree about sounds, SC2 have the worst sounds between all games made by Blizzard
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
because bw is an exciting game. You can have BW units in sc2 and still have MBS and full groups of units. The game should reward players that can micro and macro better and there are units in sc2 that the ideal doesn't apply.
They didn't work on the carrier at all, they just said its not working in the build no one is using it lets just throw it away. But it has potential and is WAY more interesting than a unit that just snipes shit from far away.
There are ways to not have ugly dumb units like the thor or the warhound and work the lore to say "OH WE UPGRADED THE GOLIATH NOW IT FUCKING SPLASHES AIR UNITS!" and instead of a big clunky unit we get a small sleek unit that looks better and probably functions better and promotes micro because you can do a bit more than shrug your shoulders when muta magic box your army. Of if they clump together you target fire them with your goliaths with air aoe but then if they magic box you make them attack more area so that way all the muta take damage and not just 1 or 2.
Blizz can rework old units into new units. But I don't get why this thread is still going on because, its been in like 2 or 3 interviews already. Blizz doesn't rework old units because the people from BW will hate what they've done with the units. Sort of like how bw players hate sc2 hydras. Its easier to set a new bar rather than having to compete with their old units because regardless people will complain. If you look back 2 years ago when WoL came out the same arguments came out when people seen how bad hydra are or, how bad tanks are compared to BW.
There is a lot I hate about what I'm reading for HOTS considering they can just bring back an arbitor and give it the oracle spells, or bring back a lurker and change it a bit so that its more of an offensive unit, Or fix the carrier instead of removing it and putting in a less interesting banana-looking unit.
The warhound doesn't even look like it belongs in any army of terran and it should be a 2 legged walker instead of a japanese theme'd mecha unit.
I really like the ability for hellion to transform and it's sort of a tip of the hat to a firebat the only problem I have with it is that hellion are already really good thusly they should either nerf how good a battle hellion is [sort of like how vikings are worse on the ground than in the air] or nerf how good a normal hellion is. Which I've got faith in how they'll balance it regardless.
The direction that sc2 and hots are going in is to get RID of micro. With slows/pulls/snares/and forcefields this reduces the amount the PLAYER can do to react to it. Instead of a viper being able to pull a unit maybe they should be able to put a DOT on mechanical or on any type of unit Call it RUST or something that way you're still able to break positioning on encampments you are otherwise not able to break, instead of giving them a pull that removes the ability for a terran player to micro. Or fungal that stops SPELLS/MOVEMENT. It's just kind of the wrong direction that I want to see because now its harder to see the best player moving forward when 1 fungal and 2 bling hitting your army changes the outcome of the game in so many key moments, or how stale PvZ endgame is. Guess I'll end my rant there I suppose unless someone has an interesting comment.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
I disagree completely, with kespa finally swapping over and OSL ending, Korean spectation and the level of player is going to increase drastically in the near future. losing half your player base after 2 years is pretty good for a game that doesn't take any level grind. SC2 is a tedious game that takes a lot of meticulous practice. I mean if you look at other games such as COD they lose like 95% of their player base every 6 month per game they make and I'm pretty sure that if they just stopped making cod's they wouldn't have HALF of their player base 2 years later. The game is good, it just doesn't mean it should have the level of balance that the pro's want or the balance that would make spectating even really good.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
I disagree completely, with kespa finally swapping over and OSL ending, Korean spectation and the level of player is going to increase drastically in the near future. losing half your player base after 2 years is pretty good for a game that doesn't take any level grind. SC2 is a tedious game that takes a lot of meticulous practice. I mean if you look at other games such as COD they lose like 95% of their player base every 6 month per game they make and I'm pretty sure that if they just stopped making cod's they wouldn't have HALF of their player base 2 years later. The game is good, it just doesn't mean it should have the level of balance that the pro's want or the balance that would make spectating even really good.
But they want it to have the balance the pros want and the balance that will keep spectators interested. It's what's going to keep the game alive 2-3 years after LoV is finally released when all of the casual players move on.
D u o, I disagree. Saying that if blizzard implements BW units people will complain no matter what is wrong. That's actually not the case. It's just that most BW units that made the cut are objectively worse: Tanks, Zerglings, Battlecruisers, Carriers, Zealots, HTs, DTs, Mutas, Hydras and Ultras. They simply are. Do I have to give reasons for every one of them? Because I can.
Speedlots are much more versatile than Chargelots because their speed upgrade is not limited to engagements. Lings are weaker mainly due to SC2's pathing. Tanks got stats-nerfed due to unit clumping and stupid no overkill engine. Mutas are practically devoid of micro becuase blizzard is clueless when it comes to understanding what actually constitutes Muta micro. Hydras were stats-nerfed for some reason. HT's Storm got nerfed due to unit clumping (see a pattern?). Ultras got stats-nerfed (again, decreasing a unit's speed). DTs warn the player even if one-hit killing enemy units (that was one of the stupidest changes; one-hitting units without alarming the enemy made them incredibly unique and emphasized their ninja theme).
Are those not objectively worse than their BW counterparts?
But there are some units that did benefit from the transition: Marines, Ghosts, Broodlords and Stalkers (I'm going to ignore the ones that are not really inspired by any BW units/got heavily overhauled, like Ravens; or units that simply had their roles altered, like Medivacs).
Out of those, Marine is the best example. It proves that SC2 does allow for units not only to match BW's level, but also to improve them. But blizzard seems pretty clueless and Marines were an accident, something they they almost nerfed to death like Reapers because people were whining they're extremely OP (aka reward micro).
To sum up, BW players are not driven by nostalgia, they are not going to dislike units ported from BW out of principle. We are willing to admit some units that got ported to SC2 got improved.
On June 18 2012 04:05 maybenexttime wrote: Out of those, Marine is the best example. It proves that SC2 does allow for units not only to match BW's level, but also to improve them. But blizzard seems pretty clueless and Marines were an accident, something they they almost nerfed to death like Reapers because people were whining they're extremely OP (aka reward micro).
Part of why marines are so good is their clumping, the same reason most other units had to be nerfed for their AoE.
On June 18 2012 04:05 maybenexttime wrote: D u o, I disagree. Saying that if blizzard implements BW units people will complain no matter what is wrong. That's actually not the case. It's just that most BW units that made the cut are objectively worse: Tanks, Zerglings, Battlecruisers, Carriers, Zealots, HTs, DTs, Mutas, Hydras and Ultras. They simply are. Do I have to give reasons for every one of them? Because I can.
Speedlots are much more versatile than Chargelots because their speed upgrade is not limited to engagements. Lings are weaker mainly due to SC2's pathing. Tanks got stats-nerfed due to unit clumping and stupid no overkill engine. Mutas are practically devoid of micro becuase blizzard is clueless when it comes to understanding what actually constitutes Muta micro. Hydras were stats-nerfed for some reason. HT's Storm got nerfed due to unit clumping (see a pattern?). Ultras got stats-nerfed (again, decreasing a unit's speed). DTs warn the player even if one-hit killing enemy units (that was one of the stupidest changes; one-hitting units without alarming the enemy made them incredibly unique and emphasized their ninja theme).
Are those not objectively worse than their BW counterparts?
But there are some units that did benefit from the transition: Marines, Ghosts, Broodlords and Stalkers (I'm going to ignore the ones that are not really inspired by any BW units/got heavily overhauled, like Ravens; or units that simply had their roles altered, like Medivacs).
Out of those, Marine is the best example. It proves that SC2 does allow for units not only to match BW's level, but also to improve them. But blizzard seems pretty clueless and Marines were an accident, something they they almost nerfed to death like Reapers because people were whining they're extremely OP (aka reward micro).
To sum up, BW players are not driven by nostalgia, they are not going to dislike units ported from BW out of principle. We are willing to admit some units that got ported to SC2 got improved.
I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm saying that in interviews has said that is why they haven't remade a lot of these other units because they'd be limited based off of players opinions on them. For example if they modified the lurker to instead of creating a line of AoE damage they just spawned two bling, people would complain that these units are worse and that they ruined the unit. A Stalker isn't from BW, a Dragoon is, even though it has the same role, its the main ranged unit from BW it doesn't have the same feel as the BW counterpart and thus not part of WoL multiplayer. Zealots are relatively the same, they have an ability that [technically] makes them faster. It's not the fact that the units became stronger or worse but more or less ruined because they'd have to change the actual unit mechanics because of the role they'd have to fill in sc2 is different than the role they fill in BW.
Like a tank in sc2 still functions like a bw tank, the damage and ect have to change but a dt is still a fast cloaking unit that attacks things and deals a shit tonne of upfront damage, but they're reluctant to change units that are already in BW and fuck around with their entire ability set. Example: Its like creating a HT that doesn't storm but cloaks things instead just because it would work better in the current sc2 engine/metagame/build. Instead of stealing that unit and reworking it for the purposes of sc2 they would rather just recreate a new unit.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
I disagree completely, with kespa finally swapping over and OSL ending, Korean spectation and the level of player is going to increase drastically in the near future. losing half your player base after 2 years is pretty good for a game that doesn't take any level grind. SC2 is a tedious game that takes a lot of meticulous practice. I mean if you look at other games such as COD they lose like 95% of their player base every 6 month per game they make and I'm pretty sure that if they just stopped making cod's they wouldn't have HALF of their player base 2 years later. The game is good, it just doesn't mean it should have the level of balance that the pro's want or the balance that would make spectating even really good.
But they want it to have the balance the pros want and the balance that will keep spectators interested. It's what's going to keep the game alive 2-3 years after LoV is finally released when all of the casual players move on.
They'll watch just like people did and do in BW............. LMAO If you don't like sc2 then don't play it and if you don't like watching it then don't but as long as there is enough spectators companies will pay for advertisments and people will still play it competitively and kespa is really good at keeping games alive, as shown via bw. Games have already shown that they don't need a casual group of people playing but a group of spectators is good enough. And actually having a casual scene of people probably ruins the game for the competitive scene because blizz is patching for lower level play which affect higher level play quite a bit more. I don't play hockey but I watch it.
On June 17 2012 20:54 DoctorPhil wrote: Luckily HotS is getting more BW like units, wich are actually interesting instead of just being "cool" like in WoL. Reintroducing all those units would just be boring. We already know them, I want to see new ones.
Tempest
Warhound
Transforming 1a2a3a Hellion
Agreed on the last two, but I really like the tempest. 22 range is like the crazy stuff that made BW fun to watch. The tempest is not an attack move unit, it's dps is too bad for that.It forces engagements and snipes important units. I find that an interesting unit.
I agree. The attack speed of the Tempest makes up for the range and its damage. It's a surgical (though not very agile), artillery figther, not an a-move unit you make 5-10 of. The Tempest will create room for more entertaining, strategic options. I think it's cool.
Furthermore it'll encourage Spire tech in ZvP more often. Heart of the Swarm to me sounds like an era in which the dominant force is a mix of flying casters, Hydralisks and Corrupters. If only Blizzard gave the Corrupter a secondary purpose. I find it sad that there are units like the Corrupter which only purpose is to eliminate air units. Same goes for the Hellion in Wings of Liberty, although with the new Battle Mode (or whatever it's called) the Hellion will make room for additional ways to approach enemy compositions.
That's what I want to see.
Uhh...... Zergs already go spire tech most of the time as you are aware ultras are a joke pvz assuming you dont want to lose as making ultralisks 80%+ of the time is a bad idea Herp a fucking Derp.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
Quite sad how putting "BW" in the thread title will bring on all these "SC2 sucks and is doomed!"-types.
On June 18 2012 04:28 D u o wrote: They'll watch just like people did and do in BW............. LMAO If you don't like sc2 then don't play it and if you don't like watching it then don't but as long as there is enough spectators companies will pay for advertisments and people will still play it competitively and kespa is really good at keeping games alive, as shown via bw. Games have already shown that they don't need a casual group of people playing but a group of spectators is good enough. And actually having a casual scene of people probably ruins the game for the competitive scene because blizz is patching for lower level play which affect higher level play quite a bit more. I don't play hockey but I watch it.
You sure like to draw a ton of assumptions. Almost everything you said agrees with my quote.
On June 18 2012 04:05 maybenexttime wrote: Out of those, Marine is the best example. It proves that SC2 does allow for units not only to match BW's level, but also to improve them. But blizzard seems pretty clueless and Marines were an accident, something they they almost nerfed to death like Reapers because people were whining they're extremely OP (aka reward micro).
Part of why marines are so good is their clumping, the same reason most other units had to be nerfed for their AoE.
Not really. That just effects how much AoE will get nerfed. What makes Marines amazing in SC2 is their microbility. In fact, I'm pretty sure their stutter step is superior to their BW counterpart. What's that? Something SC2 did better? But unfortunately very few other units received that sort capability.
I don't think you need to downgrade the engine to get the sort control you had in BW. Unit clumping is hailed as modern progression of unit ai, but to me it seems only a partial solution. A far more superior solution would be to fix the stupid behaviours of dynamic movment rather than implementing unit clumping.
The difference is night and day and if done properly, it becomes a much more spectator friendly sport, plus splash is allowed to be more powerful. Aka good for newbs and pro's alike.
There have been some improvements to unit ai in SC2, but a lot has been lost in the process. The crazy thing is if Blizzard properly understood vulture/muta/wraith micro... that micro could go on any unit they designed and make it awesome. They could literally go as crazy as they wanted and get rid of almost every single BW unit, but if it had the BW-like unit control, I don't actually think many people would care. They don't even need a special ability on every single unit- I actually really like early game marine vs stalker micro much better than when concussive shell marauders and blink stalkers come out. More of the marine vs stalker type unit interaction would be awesome.
Rarely do I want to see BW unit re-introduced so much as a re-introduction of the control I had. And you don't need a-move designed units. Vultures could a-move if you didn't have time, but you could also micro them like crazy if you did. Both/and for microbility (unless it's a spellcaster like a ht), not either/or.
On June 18 2012 03:06 D u o wrote: losing half your player base after 2 years is pretty good for a game that doesn't take any level grind.
BW continued to grow in player base for years, because the game was better and Blizzard's pricing structure (free at PC bangs) promoted it so kids could practice. Even through 2007-2008, the player base was still strong enough to support a strong group of new talent coming up through the courage tournament where the winner gets a progaming license.
But SC2 falls short on both the game itself and the pricing in Korea, thus, it could very well die only a few years after LotV. I don't want that to happen.
On June 18 2012 04:28 D u o wrote: They'll watch just like people did and do in BW............. LMAO If you don't like sc2 then don't play it and if you don't like watching it then don't but as long as there is enough spectators companies will pay for advertisments and people will still play it competitively and kespa is really good at keeping games alive, as shown via bw. Games have already shown that they don't need a casual group of people playing but a group of spectators is good enough. And actually having a casual scene of people probably ruins the game for the competitive scene because blizz is patching for lower level play which affect higher level play quite a bit more. I don't play hockey but I watch it.
You sure like to draw a ton of assumptions. Almost everything you said agrees with my quote.
Yes but it's completely backwards from what blizz is doing... They balance the game for all leagues, its the main reason for having rocks on thirds. The reason behind buffing the queen was "players in the lower leagues are having issues holding off aggression in the early game." And its the main reason behind having a mothership core to help hold off 4gates because of the purify ability [having a cannon on your nexus.] Where as the pro players aren't having problems picking up on the fact that they're getting 4gated in PvP and can use micro to their advantage or FFing their ramp and cutting units off or denying vision at the top of their ramp. You said that Blizzard wants the game to be really competitive and have spectators being able to watch, but what you didn't add is what they're ruining their chances of that because they're tailoring the game for ALL leagues and not just for the 2%.
On June 18 2012 03:06 D u o wrote: losing half your player base after 2 years is pretty good for a game that doesn't take any level grind.
BW continued to grow in player base for years, because the game was better and Blizzard's pricing structure (free at PC bangs) promoted it so kids could practice. Even through 2007-2008, the player base was still strong enough to support a strong group of new talent coming up through the courage tournament where the winner gets a progaming license.
But SC2 falls short on both the game itself and the pricing in Korea, thus, it could very well die only a few years after LotV. I don't want that to happen.
I don't see the point of looking 4 to 6 years in the future. Even if Blizz stops supporting the balance the community is more than capable of creating maps that balance the game, or alternatively pick up the map editor and change unit damage values and how they work. I don't think there is a fear of the game dying, and I'm sure that 2 years after LoV expansion comes out the price point for the game will be lower than it is when it first comes out. I think people fail to realize that the community doesn't need blizzard, but its nice for them to be there for us.
On June 18 2012 04:05 maybenexttime wrote: D u o, I disagree. Saying that if blizzard implements BW units people will complain no matter what is wrong. That's actually not the case. It's just that most BW units that made the cut are objectively worse: Tanks, Zerglings, Battlecruisers, Carriers, Zealots, HTs, DTs, Mutas, Hydras and Ultras. They simply are. Do I have to give reasons for every one of them? Because I can.
Speedlots are much more versatile than Chargelots because their speed upgrade is not limited to engagements. Lings are weaker mainly due to SC2's pathing. Tanks got stats-nerfed due to unit clumping and stupid no overkill engine. Mutas are practically devoid of micro becuase blizzard is clueless when it comes to understanding what actually constitutes Muta micro. Hydras were stats-nerfed for some reason. HT's Storm got nerfed due to unit clumping (see a pattern?). Ultras got stats-nerfed (again, decreasing a unit's speed). DTs warn the player even if one-hit killing enemy units (that was one of the stupidest changes; one-hitting units without alarming the enemy made them incredibly unique and emphasized their ninja theme).
Are those not objectively worse than their BW counterparts?
But there are some units that did benefit from the transition: Marines, Ghosts, Broodlords and Stalkers (I'm going to ignore the ones that are not really inspired by any BW units/got heavily overhauled, like Ravens; or units that simply had their roles altered, like Medivacs).
Out of those, Marine is the best example. It proves that SC2 does allow for units not only to match BW's level, but also to improve them. But blizzard seems pretty clueless and Marines were an accident, something they they almost nerfed to death like Reapers because people were whining they're extremely OP (aka reward micro).
To sum up, BW players are not driven by nostalgia, they are not going to dislike units ported from BW out of principle. We are willing to admit some units that got ported to SC2 got improved.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your points entirelying, but Chargelots do receive a speed bonus in movement. Sure it's not as dramatic as Speedlots in BW but they do receive an increase from 2.25 - 2.75 basic movement not including Charge.
I thought Tanks were nerfed due to how TvT had issues with just static Tank Lines wrecking any sort of Bio-Ground force? It made for extremely long games if I recall. They also countered too many of Zerg's units too well.
Hydras were nerfed and buffed in some cases since they introduced Roaches and Blizzard didn't want to have the same low-tier BW combos going on. Dragoons removed, Firebat/Medics removed.
HT's nerf..well if you can call it that. Nothing about the unit itself was actually nerfed. They removed KA so there wasn't any more instant-warp-in storms. Whether or not that was a good idea depends on which side you're on.
Yet Blizzard is actually looking at BW to improve on some of these units. Hydra speed in HOTS will be insane and makes them much more viable to use. Widow mines - Spider Mines. Swarm Host - Lurker/Broodlord mix.
On June 18 2012 03:43 Tyrant0 wrote: But they want it to have the balance the pros want and the balance that will keep spectators interested. It's what's going to keep the game alive 2-3 years after LoV is finally released when all of the casual players move on.
I think this is a false dichotomy. The pros generally probably want what's best for spectating. Moving shot patrol micro - good for spectating and player satisfaction. Very fast units like the vulture - good for spectating and player satisfaction. I asked ForGG on his stream if he missed the vulture, and he said yes. How couldn't he? Players like Fantasy almost made their career off of vulture patrol micro, and now in SC2 he has....marine stutter stepping and splitting. How long will SC2 hold his interest? SC2 needs more of this, where amazing control let's you do amazing things with almost nothing:
Quote from another vulture micro video: "This one trick and this tone trick only has kept me playing Terran for years. Nice video mate."
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
I'm talking about units, not the interface. While I do think MBS etc. detract from the breadth of skill and lower the skill ceiling, I understand that the most important elements are unit, their dynamics, and their spacing.
On June 17 2012 20:39 Vindicare605 wrote: The sad reason that Lurkers just cannot exist in SC2 is because of Banelings.
That's like saying siege tanks can't exist because hellions do splash too. Banelings are melee suicide units, lurkers are ranged stealth units, completely different roles, and one is more useful and cost efficient later in the game.
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Meanwhile Zerg loses the splash of the Lurker and Infested Terran and gains the Baneling, a splash unit on a much lower tier than anything Zerg had prior, and gains splash also on the Ultralisk which was splash that didn't exist in Brood War either. Fungal Growth replaced Plague but that's about an even trade, smaller radius but with an immobilization effect.
Adding the Lurker back in gives Zerg more splash than they have currently in WoL which is a lot more already than what they had in Brood War, making it over the top.
On June 18 2012 04:05 maybenexttime wrote: Out of those, Marine is the best example. It proves that SC2 does allow for units not only to match BW's level, but also to improve them. But blizzard seems pretty clueless and Marines were an accident, something they they almost nerfed to death like Reapers because people were whining they're extremely OP (aka reward micro).
Part of why marines are so good is their clumping, the same reason most other units had to be nerfed for their AoE.
Not really. That just effects how much AoE will get nerfed. What makes Marines amazing in SC2 is their microbility. In fact, I'm pretty sure their stutter step is superior to their BW counterpart. What's that? Something SC2 did better? But unfortunately very few other units received that sort capability.
I don't think you need to downgrade the engine to get the sort control you had in BW. Unit clumping is hailed as modern progression of unit ai, but to me it seems only a partial solution. A far more superior solution would be to fix the stupid behaviours of dynamic movment rather than implementing unit clumping.
The difference is night and day and if done properly, it becomes a much more spectator friendly sport, plus splash is allowed to be more powerful. Aka good for newbs and pro's alike.
There have been some improvements to unit ai in SC2, but a lot has been lost in the process. The crazy thing is if Blizzard properly understood vulture/muta/wraith micro... that micro could go on any unit they designed and make it awesome. They could literally go as crazy as they wanted and get rid of almost every single BW unit, but if it had the BW-like unit control, I don't actually think many people would care. They don't even need a special ability on every single unit- I actually really like early game marine vs stalker micro much better than when concussive shell marauders and blink stalkers come out. More of the marine vs stalker type unit interaction would be awesome.
Rarely do I want to see BW unit re-introduced so much as a re-introduction of the control I had. And you don't need a-move designed units. Vultures could a-move if you didn't have time, but you could also micro them like crazy if you did. Both/and for microbility (unless it's a spellcaster like a ht), not either/or.
Their ability to be microed (better animations) is just one aspect to it. The fact they clump, allowing more to fire simultaneously makes them much more efficient in that regard as well. To the point that you actually just can't engage a ball of marines with any form of air or melee without AoE.
edit: At first I was confused by what you were aiming at, then I thought I understood, then I re-read and now I'm just confused again. I'd just make all the unit's hitboxes slightly bigger, so that balls would take up more space. Units like stalkers/hydras/marines become less powerful, colossus are as a consequence nerfed, tanks can be buffed again, engagements are much bigger and longer. It feels like it can do only good. I'm not sure what you're proposing which is what has me confused but I feel like we're in agreement on the general idea.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
What Browder doesn't understand is that noobs don't care if they get owned with imba units like reavers and tanks and carriers, because the opportunity for them to access the same units and do terrible damage with them is what makes it exciting. Browder is afraid of failure and is playing not to lose rather than to win, in terms of Sc2's game design.
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
I'm talking about units, not the interface. While I do think MBS etc. detract from the breadth of skill and lower the skill ceiling, I understand that the most important elements are unit, their dynamics, and their spacing.
On June 17 2012 20:39 Vindicare605 wrote: The sad reason that Lurkers just cannot exist in SC2 is because of Banelings.
That's like saying siege tanks can't exist because hellions do splash too. Banelings are melee suicide units, lurkers are ranged stealth units, completely different roles, and one is more useful and cost efficient later in the game.
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Meanwhile Zerg loses the splash of the Lurker and Infested Terran and gains the Baneling, a splash unit on a much lower tier than anything Zerg had prior, and gains splash also on the Ultralisk which was splash that didn't exist in Brood War either. Fungal Growth replaced Plague but that's about an even trade, smaller radius but with an immobilization effect.
Adding the Lurker back in gives them even MORE splash when they already have much more splash than they ever had access to in Brood War putting it over the top.
That maybe so, but banelings don't actually fill the role that lurkers had. Banelings are forced to retreat, retreat, retreat and never engage until it's time to attack and then go rolling in and blow stuff up and die. Lurkers were used to delay and hold positions- something that I think only spine crawlers do now. I see a lot of Zerg that are forced to retreat deep into their own territory before they can mass up again. Lurkers could hold a ridge, then retreat to the next ridge and delay the push again etc. That we they give the Zerg more time to remass. Or they could sit 2 lurkers on top of a ramp to protect the expansion until reinforcements could arrive.
But I don't think they would work anymore because of roaches and marauders and other 'tanky' units that could ignore the damage and snipe it anyways. Late game tech to lurkers would never work as it appears way too late for it to fulfill it's intended role.
But there still exists that more positional/ defensive role that is missing from the Zerg arsenal. Maybe the swarmlord will fulfill it? But who knows.
Their ability to be microed (better animations) is just one aspect to it. The fact they clump, allowing more to fire simultaneously makes them much more efficient in that regard as well. To the point that you actually just can't engage a ball of marines with any form of air or melee without AoE.
edit: At first I was confused by what you were aiming at, then I thought I understood, then I re-read and now I'm just confused again.
Oh clumping makes them more effective in that it's more DPS/area and therefore more efficient. But what makes marines more interesting and what makes them such a spectator friendly unit is not the clumping, but their ability to be microed. In fact the clumping makes it less spectator friendly because it's too hard to see, especially if the casters have all the healthbars on and actually cover up all the units with green lights.
having had a look at the new units introduced in HotS, I'm really curious about one thing:
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to bring back some of the units from Brood War?
Take for instance the War Hound:
When first it was announced, it seemed to have an Anti-Air missile and operated very much like the Goliath. Back then I was kind of puzzled by how they did not just bring back the Goliath, with the awesome sound any animation of their Anti-Air rockets.
Also strange seems the Swarm Host.
People asked for the Lurker, people got the Lurker. Well, kind of. A burrowed siege unit that can be used to break fortified positions? Alright, but why give Zerg a unit that's so shockingly similar to the Brood Lord instead of the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?
I am now die hard Broodwar fan, only having heard from it once SC2 was out, only having played ~50 games vs. the computer, only having a very vague idea about how units work. So please don't crucify me if I got something wrong.
What do you think?
Probably mainly because this is SC2 not SC. If they wanted to make the same game with better graphics they could have easily done that. They wanted to make a new game, that's what they did.
I'm not too worried about it, BW will always be around, and people will always make BW units with the custom editor sooo..
I think you, and a lot of people, are missing the point of this thread. OP is saying that blizz are reluctant to bring back the true bw units themselves despite many of the new units sharing a lot of their features and resemblances. Each of the new units borrows many things from a specific bw unit.
This is in contrast to blizzard's WoL units (that arent exact copies ofc like lings, marines etc), such as colo, roach, marauder, sentry, reaper, corrupter, raven, thor etc etc that don't share similarities to bw units. Only units from WoL that have a similar bw counter part are stalkers and broodlords, at least that i can think of.
The question is then, if you're are basically taken the same idea why not just make it the same as the original unit altogether?
Exactly, A)but these units actually function differently and are also functioning in a different "universe". Also there is only so much you can do tactically in any given universe. Essentially they aren't going to try to make a copy. Any unit they make will have a similarity. There are "Marines" in call of duty.. but Lurkers? What game has those, that is a very specific thing. Now, B)lets examine if they do bring BW units back. We will have threads like "Lurker isn't the real Lurker". No shit, see 'A'.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
Quite sad how putting "BW" in the thread title will bring on all these "SC2 sucks and is doomed!"-types.
Mind pointing out where I'm wrong? How are the delayed expansion packs not life support when nearly all SC2 players feel that way? "Wait until the game gets released", "wait a year", "wait until HotS", "wait until LotV"...
I've offered constructive criticism regarding Sc2 ever since the game was announced. Don't play me down by labeling me as a mindless hater...
On June 18 2012 05:32 Falling wrote: Oh clumping makes them more effective in that it's more DPS/area and therefore more efficient. But what makes marines more interesting and what makes them such a spectator friendly unit is not the clumping, but their ability to be microed. In fact the clumping makes it less spectator friendly because it's too hard to see, especially if the casters have all the healthbars on and actually cover up all the units with green lights.
Oh, I was simply referring to why the Marine was stronger in SC2 as opposed to BW. The original post didn't seem to account for the engine changes that inherently buffed them as well (better attack animations, clumping, etc.). I don't think clumping makes SC2 more watchable. I'm not sure if it makes it worse, because at the moment I enjoy SC2 for what it is. I definitely feel like it'd be better (both playing and spectating) without clumped up balls of units. I edited my post if you didn't see; I'm pretty sure we agree with each other.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
Quite sad how putting "BW" in the thread title will bring on all these "SC2 sucks and is doomed!"-types.
Mind pointing out where I'm wrong? How are the delayed expansion packs not life support when nearly all SC2 players feel that way? "Wait until the game gets released", "wait a year", "wait until HotS", "wait until LotV"...
I've offered constructive criticism regarding Sc2 ever since the game was announced. Don't play me down by labeling me as a mindless hater...
You have absolutely no idea how nearly all SC2 players feel. If anything, the tens of thousands of people watching Dreamhack right now seem to be enjoying the game as it is. The expansions will just add on to that enjoyment we get from the game.
Let me guess, your constructive criticism has been mostly about making the game BW redux? Yeah well, that train has passed. I think its best you stop wasting your time here.
On June 17 2012 00:57 kafkaesque wrote: B)lets examine if they do bring BW units back. We will have threads like "Lurker isn't the real Lurker". No shit, see 'A'.
The reason we have those threads is because browder completely changed the hydra from a staple unit to a niche one. It wasn't that he just plopped it in unchanged and it wasn't useful. He arbitrarily changed it to be worse. If he had just kept it as a 1 supply massable swarmey unit with decent speed and general utility, then noone would have made that thread. The problem is his urge to mess with good things. He's had lots of decent new ideas unrelated to units, but he's also ruined a lot of already perfect units in the name of being different.
As Jony Ive has said, 'It's very easy to be different, but very difficult to be better.'
Such is the case with SC2, and Browder has taken the easy way out. I don't blame him for wanting to keep his job in this economy, but I can blame him for not having the courage to try to out-do broodwar.
Lots of games have been immensely popular esports for a short time, fizzled, and died out. Only a few had the staying power of BW. That was due to many factors, but one of them was the thing we are talking about.
Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again?
As Jony Ive has said, 'It's very easy to be different, but very difficult to be better.'
Such is the case with SC2, and Browder has taken the easy way out. I don't blame him for wanting to keep his job in this economy, but I can blame him for not having the courage to try to out-do broodwar.
What a stupid thing to say. You just contradicted yourself.
On June 18 2012 00:20 iky43210 wrote: why the hell do people want broodwar to come back? do people not realize casual gamers just aren't going to play with no multiple building selections, auto mining, or more than 12 units grouping? Those are more tedious tasks than it is
I'm talking about units, not the interface. While I do think MBS etc. detract from the breadth of skill and lower the skill ceiling, I understand that the most important elements are unit, their dynamics, and their spacing.
On June 17 2012 20:39 Vindicare605 wrote: The sad reason that Lurkers just cannot exist in SC2 is because of Banelings.
That's like saying siege tanks can't exist because hellions do splash too. Banelings are melee suicide units, lurkers are ranged stealth units, completely different roles, and one is more useful and cost efficient later in the game.
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Meanwhile Zerg loses the splash of the Lurker and Infested Terran and gains the Baneling, a splash unit on a much lower tier than anything Zerg had prior, and gains splash also on the Ultralisk which was splash that didn't exist in Brood War either. Fungal Growth replaced Plague but that's about an even trade, smaller radius but with an immobilization effect.
Adding the Lurker back in gives them even MORE splash when they already have much more splash than they ever had access to in Brood War putting it over the top.
That maybe so, but banelings don't actually fill the role that lurkers had. Banelings are forced to retreat, retreat, retreat and never engage until it's time to attack and then go rolling in and blow stuff up and die. Lurkers were used to delay and hold positions- something that I think only spine crawlers do now. I see a lot of Zerg that are forced to retreat deep into their own territory before they can mass up again. Lurkers could hold a ridge, then retreat to the next ridge and delay the push again etc. That we they give the Zerg more time to remass. Or they could sit 2 lurkers on top of a ramp to protect the expansion until reinforcements could arrive.
But I don't think they would work anymore because of roaches and marauders and other 'tanky' units that could ignore the damage and snipe it anyways. Late game tech to lurkers would never work as it appears way too late for it to fulfill it's intended role.
But there still exists that more positional/ defensive role that is missing from the Zerg arsenal. Maybe the swarmlord will fulfill it? But who knows.
The potential for bling to delay is there, you can get burrow and just do a line of burrow bling across the map to delay. But I agree lurker are useful in more situations. I mean I think it takes 3 to kill sentry and only 2 to kill marine, you force scans or make them build a raven [which terran will NEVER do] and not only can you delay but you can get a shit tonne of kills and perhaps even win the game with it. I mean I think my biggest argument is that they're against using the cool design of units in SC2 even though they have the same purpose. ie: Goliath instead of a Thor, or the model for a Goliath for the Warhound which is kind of the light that the thread itself was created. I agree with you and how we've lost being able to control units and get more out of them if you're good enough to do so. Which is sort of disheartening. I feel that it's not only how the units move and clump together but also how there are abilities that snare and create walls and slow and that itself reduces how much micro players are able to do. I really feel that instead of adding abilities like fungal and force field and marauder slows, along with the hots abduct ability they could just have less abilities and force players to use more micro, if a player can split marines to reduce bling splash they should be rewarded, instead of having something that locks units down perhaps make it so that the units aren't as fast when stimmed so that such a split isn't capable of happening. I mean even if you have a darkswarm ability in the game you're still prolonging the life of your bling so splitting is more effective and your bling don't get clump shotted by tanks. I mean there is other things they can do other than reducing the amount of micro needed to do such things yet they continue to introduce units and abilities that ruin how effective your units can be.
On June 18 2012 02:41 Brow23 wrote: No one wants BW Units, new units are always better! All these BW-Kiddies should get comfortable with the fact that BW is D-E-A-D!
Like Marauders, Colossi, Mothership, Roaches, Immortals, Hellions, Vikings, really? LOL You can't be serious. It's not like SC2 is gonna be alive for long unless blizzard fixes the game. Currently it's on life support in form of really spaced out expansion packs. Ever since beta people have been saying "wait until the game actually gets released", "wait until that major patch", "wait until HotS". After HotS people will be saying "wait until LotV" (some already are). After LotV gets released and the major issues remain, the game will collapse. It's already lost half of the active player base, has not caught on in Korea and China (I think), while foreign spectators are losing interest due to Korean dominance.
Good luck with that kind of a game. ;p
Quite sad how putting "BW" in the thread title will bring on all these "SC2 sucks and is doomed!"-types.
Mind pointing out where I'm wrong? How are the delayed expansion packs not life support when nearly all SC2 players feel that way? "Wait until the game gets released", "wait a year", "wait until HotS", "wait until LotV"...
I've offered constructive criticism regarding Sc2 ever since the game was announced. Don't play me down by labeling me as a mindless hater...
You have absolutely no idea how nearly all SC2 players feel. If anything, the tens of thousands of people watching Dreamhack right now seem to be enjoying the game as it is. The expansions will just add on to that enjoyment we get from the game.
Let me guess, your constructive criticism has been mostly about making the game BW redux? Yeah well, that train has passed. I think its best you stop wasting your time here.
You must've missed literally dozens of threads and articles pointing out SC2's flaws and SC2 apologists using the very arguments I've mentioned. "Give it time."
On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote: Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again?
As Jony Ive has said, 'It's very easy to be different, but very difficult to be better.'
Such is the case with SC2, and Browder has taken the easy way out. I don't blame him for wanting to keep his job in this economy, but I can blame him for not having the courage to try to out-do broodwar.
What a stupid thing to say. You just contradicted yourself.
First of all, straw man. I'm not advocating a BW reskin. I already listed the improvements in new features that they added. I am advocating having almost all units have a high micro skill ceiling and/or moving shot micro, and unit spacing where they don't overlap. Not that hard. I don't care if the vulture comes back if the hellion can have moving shot.
Secondly, I didn't contradict myself, you misread my statement.
I implied that Browder wasn't capable of out-doing broodwar so he tried to be more different.
Also, the lurker was overpowered in BW, that's the point. All he had to do was fix unit spacing (something anyone can do in the map editor in a few minutes) or nerf damage a bit to be IMBA but not too IMBA. Done. But really, 'they didn't work out' was just an excuse to satisfy his urge to do new stuff as a designer. I understand that, I'm a designer too. But new isn't always better.
On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote: Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again?
The simple solution to that problem is to stop unit clumping. Blizzard's far too narrowminded to do something like that though.
DBro feels he must maintain the status quo or risk destroying the game. This is patently retarded.
On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote: Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again?
The simple solution to that problem is to stop unit clumping. Blizzard's far too narrowminded to do something like that though.
DBro feels he must maintain the status quo or risk destroying the game. This is patently retarded.
Yes, he talks the talk about staying open-minded and being willing to change anything in terms of units and game design, but the reality is he'd rather just worry about unit concepts and will likely never touch those fundamental elements that would improve the game. I don't know why, he has two expansions that give him an excuse to do so. They'll be new games anyway, he might as well play with that stuff too.
On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote: Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again?
The simple solution to that problem is to stop unit clumping. Blizzard's far too narrowminded to do something like that though.
DBro feels he must maintain the status quo or risk destroying the game. This is patently retarded.
Yes, he talks the talk about staying open-minded and being willing to change anything in terms of units and game design, but the reality is he'd rather just worry about unit concepts and will likely never touch those fundamental elements that would improve the game. I don't know why, he has two expansions that give him an excuse to do so. They'll be new games anyway, he might as well play with that stuff too.
I'm just hoping the community is willing to take it into their own hands if it does wind up being less than ideal for competitive play kind of like in BW. :S
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote: Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again?
The simple solution to that problem is to stop unit clumping. Blizzard's far too narrowminded to do something like that though.
DBro feels he must maintain the status quo or risk destroying the game. This is patently retarded.
Yes, he talks the talk about staying open-minded and being willing to change anything in terms of units and game design, but the reality is he'd rather just worry about unit concepts and will likely never touch those fundamental elements that would improve the game. I don't know why, he has two expansions that give him an excuse to do so. They'll be new games anyway, he might as well play with that stuff too.
I'm just hoping the community is willing to take it into their own hands if it does wind up being less than ideal for competitive play kind of like in BW. :S
One can always look to AoE2 scene. They have a community-made expansion coming out with balance changes and two new races. Or is it already out? I have to check or someone can tell me.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebats used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here.
I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged and Terrans have also been given some other tools to accomplish what the Spider Mine used to in Sensor Towers and Planetary Fortresses.
As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech.
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here.
I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged.
As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech.
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here.
I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged.
As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech.
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose.
This is more of a design argument than anything else.
The Baneling is designed to fulfill the same role as the Lurker. whether or not it does so effectively is a matter of debate. Personally I think Banelings are not as good of a defensive weapon as the Lurker was but are 10x as good as Lurkers were when used offensively. But the argument here is that the two cannot co-exist in Starcraft 2 because of their ability to complement each other as well as tread on each other's toes from a design standpoint.
In HoTS Zerg is getting another unit that's designed for the purpose of Zone control but it does it in a way that doesn't involve splash damage. I think there's a very clear reason for why that is and it goes back to what I'm talking about here.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here.
I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged.
As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech.
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose.
This is more of a design argument than anything else.
The Baneling is designed to fulfill the same role as the Lurker. whether or not it does so effectively is a matter of debate. Personally I think Banelings are not as good of a defensive weapon as the Lurker was but are 10x as good as Lurkers were when used offensively. But the argument here is that the two cannot co-exist in Starcraft 2 because of their ability to complement each other as well as tread on each other's toes from a design standpoint.
In HoTS Zerg is getting another unit that's designed for the purpose of Zone control but it does it in a way that doesn't involve splash damage. I think there's a very clear reason for why that is and it goes back to what I'm talking about here.
The swarm host is meant for sieging positions they cant break. DB has said that, it spawns things too slow, you can scan and have a few units kill it before it has the chance to fight back, i think its 2 every 10 seconds right? you just wait kill the 2 and then scan and stim 3 marine or send 2 zealots, its not good at controlling space at all. Think of it as a zerg siege tank how it burrows like seiging and then slowly shoots dealing damage.
On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote: Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here.
I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged.
As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech.
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose.
This is more of a design argument than anything else.
The Baneling is designed to fulfill the same role as the Lurker. whether or not it does so effectively is a matter of debate. Personally I think Banelings are not as good of a defensive weapon as the Lurker was but are 10x as good as Lurkers were when used offensively. But the argument here is that the two cannot co-exist in Starcraft 2 because of their ability to complement each other as well as tread on each other's toes from a design standpoint.
In HoTS Zerg is getting another unit that's designed for the purpose of Zone control but it does it in a way that doesn't involve splash damage. I think there's a very clear reason for why that is and it goes back to what I'm talking about here.
The swarm host is meant for sieging positions they cant break. DB has said that, it spawns things too slow, you can scan and have a few units kill it before it has the chance to fight back, i think its 2 every 10 seconds right? you just wait kill the 2 and then scan and stim 3 marine or send 2 zealots, its not good at controlling space at all. Think of it as a zerg siege tank how it burrows like seiging and then slowly shoots dealing damage.
I'm 100% positive that in two different interviews with DB he describes the Swarm Host as a board control unit from a design standpoint.
It's a brand new unit and very different from anything I've ever used in any RTS and when I played with it at MLG i didn't quite get a feel for it right away but that's what beta is for.
On June 18 2012 07:24 Ownos wrote: Because it's Starcraft *2*
More like "random RTS 2", as blizzard did not want to capture any of StarCraft's beauty. If it didn't look like StarCraft in terms of graphics/unit names, etc. people would have a hard time finding similarities between the two beyond the superficial level.
On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote: I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
I understand your line of thinking, but I'm still not communicating my point to you successfully. Abstractly, you make sense when you say that the hellion splash is equivalent to spider mines, BUT...in practice hellions are nowhere near as useful as vultures and mines were in BW. I also submit that your assessment that a hellion with spider mines would be 'too much' is completely arbitrary. By Browder's standards for SC2, lots of BW splash would be 'too much.'
If you look at the majority of units in WoL, they basically just took units from Brood War and either kept them or changed them to something a bit different with the same sort of functionality. Hellions are just vultures with splash instead of mines. Stalkers are dragoons that can teleport. The mothership is an arbiter. Thors are goliaths you can't micro. Brood lords are guardians. Corrupters are devourers. Few units are really totally new and unique.
On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote: I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
I understand your line of thinking, but I'm still not communicating my point to you successfully. Abstractly, you make sense when you say that the hellion splash is equivalent to spider mines, BUT...in practice hellions are nowhere near as useful as vultures and mines were in BW. I also submit that your assessment that a hellion with spider mines would be 'too much' is completely arbitrary. By Browder's standards for SC2, lots of BW splash would be 'too much.'
Browder has very good reasoning behind why the kind of splash we saw in Brood War can't work in SC2. The engine behind it just makes it too extreme.
I understand your point about Hellions and Vultures and actually I wholeheartedly agree with it, and I think Blizzard does too which is why in HOTS we're seeing the Battle Hellion and Widow Mine two new mech units designed to fill the holes the absence of the Spider Mine left for mech play.
The thing is with all of this is that the game isn't complete yet and as the holes develop Blizzard has two expansions to fill them up again. While I understand the idea behind "well why not just put back in Brood War units because they obviously filled all the roles we needed to fill" I understand also that it isn't quite that simple.
Aside from the whole "this is a new game" argument, which I understand there's also the problem that not every unit from Brood War fits in SC2 with the new engine and new faster paced gameplay style.
On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote: The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
This is so arbitrary it's not even funny. The raw number of splash control stuff a race has does not directly translate into balance or good game design. You can't just say 'give all races 5 forms of good splash damage' and then the game design and balance is amazing and exciting.
No zerg can afford the gas to make ultras infestors, banelings and lurkers, nor would that be efficient. It's more likely to include one of those units with a mineral-heavy unit like zerglings. And to assert that ultralisks splash means much is laughable.
You have the exact same problem as Dustin Browder and David Kim. You're more afraid of messing the game up than making each unit exciting and improving spacing dynamics of SC2.
On June 18 2012 07:51 Vindicare605 wrote: Browder has very good reasoning behind why the kind of splash we saw in Brood War can't work in SC2. The engine behind it just makes it too extreme.
Browder has impeccable reasoning and like most designers he can talk about design well. That doesn't mean he can make a game as good as BW though.
Also, when you say 'the engine behind it makes it too extreme,' wtf does that even mean? In one day, the unit spacing could be fixed and your seemingly insurmountable problem disappears. The Starbow and SC2BW guys did it and they're amateurs. Your argument fizzles, just like Browder's cop-out excuses do.
On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote: The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
This is so arbitrary it's not even funny. The raw number of splash control stuff a race has does not directly translate into balance or good game design. You can't just say 'give all races 5 forms of good splash damage' and then the game design and balance is amazing and exciting.
No zerg can afford the gas to make ultras infestors, banelings and lurkers, nor would that be efficient. It's more likely to include one of those units with a mineral-heavy unit like zerglings. And to assert that ultralisks splash means much is laughable.
You have the exact same problem as Dustin Browder and David Kim. You're more afraid of messing the game up than making each unit exciting and improving spacing dynamics of SC2.
On June 18 2012 07:51 Vindicare605 wrote: Browder has very good reasoning behind why the kind of splash we saw in Brood War can't work in SC2. The engine behind it just makes it too extreme.
Browder has impeccable reasoning and like most designers he can talk about design well. That doesn't mean he can make a game as good as BW though.
Also, when you say 'the engine behind it makes it too extreme,' wtf does that even mean? In one day, the unit spacing could be fixed and your seemingly insurmountable problem disappears. The Starbow and SC2BW guys did it and they're amateurs. Your argument fizzles, just like Browder's cop-out excuses do.
Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
You see how that works?
Sure you might feel like it'd make the game better, but whose to say that opinion is correct. It might make it better for you and others and worse for a whole ton of other people. At what point should the developers completely rework something just because part of the community wants them to in order to make a game more suited to their tastes?
As per the Lurker and Baneling problem the same issue is here. You have your own set of priorities for what you want to see in the game while the developers have theirs. You're totally fine instituting a dynamic that's potentially completely overpowered just for the sake of making things more exciting to you, while the developers look at that same scenario and see unneeded hassle because the unit's role is already fulfilled in a way the community is happy with for the most part. I mean how often do you really hear cries for the baneling to be removed? It's a unit that a majority of the community is totally fine with.
See the difference here is that the developers are trying to make the game they created better, while you want them to tear down part of it and make it different not knowing whether or not it WOULD be any better but just because it would feel more like Brood War to you.
Here's how everyone wins. Mods. The developers can keep making the game they want, and the community can make theirs. If the modded version is better for tournament play, then tournaments will eventually start using it the same way DOTA tournaments sprang up out of a Warcraft 3 mod and became huge.
At the end of the day. Starcraft 2 is already a game a ton of people enjoy. While for some the kinds of changes you want would make it better for others it wouldn't, and whose to say that your opinion somehow has more authority just because your goal is to make the game like Brood War.
The game is already fun, the HOTS demo I played is already a lot fun. Just because it isn't Brood War doesn't mean it isn't already awesome.
On June 18 2012 08:56 GhandiEAGLE wrote: Lurkers would be great-for marauders to shit all over. Locusts promise to be more effective against the marauders than a lurker would be.
No one would cry if they removed marauders, which is a bigger problem with the game itself than lurkers not being there.
How would a fix to unit clumping be worse? Who would it be worse for? It's better in the top end to limit death balls and it's better for the low end because it's easier to tell what's going on. Certainly the game has been balanced based on unit clumping, but it can be rebalanced with any one of these expansions.
I've got a file of these. It's just really hard to tell what's going on. Even if you don't have healthbars on- and that's just as much an issue at the low level/ casual viewing. Perhaps more so.
I don't know if Mods will be the answer as Blizzard exercises a far greater amount of control then they did before. Even with experimenting with low resource maps. In the past, we just did it. Now we have to beg Blizzard to test it out on ladder because that's mostly where people play.
On June 18 2012 07:24 Ownos wrote: Because it's Starcraft *2*
More like "random RTS 2", as blizzard did not want to capture any of StarCraft's beauty. If it didn't look like StarCraft in terms of graphics/unit names, etc. people would have a hard time finding similarities between the two beyond the superficial level.
Does it really matter? I would argue that the jump from WC2 -> WC3 is a 10x bigger gap than BW -> SC2. And WC3 is a great RTS game. (Unless you are talking about nostalgia? I'm not really sure why a sequel needs to mimic its predecessor)
On June 18 2012 09:02 Falling wrote: How would a fix to unit clumping be worse? Who would it be worse for? It's better in the top end to limit death balls and it's better for the low end because it's easier to tell what's going on. Certainly the game has been balanced based on unit clumping, but it can be rebalanced when with any one of these expansions.
I've got a file of these. It's just really hard to tell what's going on. Even if you don't have healthbars on- and that's just as much an issue at the low level/ casual viewing. Perhaps more so.
I don't know if Mods will be the answer as Blizzard exercises a far greater amount of control then they did before. Even with experimenting with low resource maps. In the past, we just did it. Now we have to beg Blizzard to test it out on ladder because that's mostly where people play.
I think a lot of that has to do with how poor the custom game system is in B.NET 2.0.
I think the Arcade patch 1.5 (which is AWESOME btw) will do a lot in giving the modding community more room to test the stuff they want to test. The open games lobby, and rating system will make it much easier for people like me (who really enjoys the 6m 1hyg maps) to find those mods and test them.
As per the clumping issue, I have my own issues with it but I don't think that the deathballs will just go away if you make things clump less tightly together by default. It's an issue that's caused not only by the way units naturally clump together but also by the ability to select an infinite number of units and move them at once, which is also something you could never do in SC1.
But even more than that, we've already seen a huge evolution in the way the game is played from 2 years ago, things are already spreading out, engagements are happening more frequently at the pro level, and the game as a whole is evolving in a beautiful way that makes me very hopeful for its future. I think the devs notice this too.
On June 18 2012 09:07 Feartheguru wrote: Broodlords make ZvP such an awful matchup to watch. Now they're making land broodlords ....
To be fair it isn't JUST Broodlords.
Collosus are just simply right now too effective at wiping out ANYTHING Zerg has available on the ground once they reach a certain number that it essentially forces them into Broodlords/Air units as the game goes on.
The Viper gives Zerg another counter to Collosus and encourages more ground based play, which on the whole opens up the entire match up once it hits late game.
Also the Tempest is going to be fantastic for sniping down broodlords because it deals bonus damage to massive and has range that's superior.
So in HOTS, both races get new counters to the units that are currently stagnating the lategame of the match up. That makes me cheerful.
I would pick the choice where units are now slightly faster, and units like the Siege Tank do slightly more damage to compensate for the fact that it's now easier to break Siege Tank lines, dodge Storms, split Marines, etc.
On June 18 2012 09:12 alexanderzero wrote: Everyone is like "oh it's easy to remove unit clumping" but it's not that easy. You have to do one of two things:
-Make the hitboxes for every unit artificially large. -Make the units NOT take the shortest path to their destination.
Those are both terrible choices. Which one would you pick?
It's not easy except there are mods/maps that actually do it. It's just not easy for the devs to swallow their pride and try to modify the core gameplay of SC2.
Both are terrible choices if you choose to interject an opinion. How else are you realistically going to do it?
On June 18 2012 09:12 alexanderzero wrote: Everyone is like "oh it's easy to remove unit clumping" but it's not that easy. You have to do one of two things:
-Make the hitboxes for every unit artificially large. -Make the units NOT take the shortest path to their destination.
Those are both terrible choices. Which one would you pick?
I dunno, seems like B worked pretty swell the first time around, why not again?
Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban.
On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote: Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban.
Apparently you don't have to read the thread to make utterly gross generalizations of contrasting opinions. Fairly disingenuous to shrug off any discussion as "BW fans venting about how bad and a joke SC2 is because its not BW."
On June 18 2012 08:50 Vindicare605 wrote: Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
This would be understandable in most circumstances, except there are a few huge reasons it isn't.
1 - Starcraft is about big armies. BW armies felt bigger because they took up multiple screens. What is currently 'part of the game' in SC2 is single screen hyper concentrated deathballs. That isn't what made BW successful, nor is it as exciting. At times, it can approach the same level of excitement, but it is more rare. The deathball diminishes the variability in positioning that allows for layers of success in engagements.
2 - It's not just about relative spacing. UNITS ACTUALLY CLIP EACH OTHER. This is bad for player micro, and bad for legibility as it makes the game harder to understand because of the layers of information. This is bad for esports beyond just the psychological army size.
Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing.
On June 18 2012 08:50 Vindicare605 wrote: Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
This would be understandable in most circumstances, except there are a few huge reasons it isn't.
1 - Starcraft is about big armies. BW armies felt bigger because they took up multiple screens. What is currently 'part of the game' in SC2 is single screen hyper concentrated deathballs. That isn't what made BW successful, nor is it as exciting. At times, it can approach the same level of excitement, but it is more rare. The deathball diminishes the variability in positioning that allows for layers of success in engagements.
2 - It's not just about relative spacing. UNITS ACTUALLY CLIP EACH OTHER. This is bad for player micro, and bad for legibility as it makes the game harder to understand because of the layers of information. This is bad for esports beyond just the psychological army size.
Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing.
To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote: Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War.
This thread is not about sc2 vs brood war. I never even played brood war yet I agree with a lot of things said in this thread. The unit clumping can be fixed in the editor in mere minutes and there is no reason not to. You don't have to look at brood war to realize that.
On June 18 2012 09:36 SarcasmMonster wrote: To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =)
On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote: Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban.
fer,
I never called SC2 bad. Or worthless. Or a joke. I said it had fundamental flaws as a result of bad game design and stubbornness that could be easily remedied. Most top players who played BW would agree, it's just that they don't want to get on blizzard's bad side or negatively impact their career.
I'm giving the same specific constructive criticism that the community has been giving for two years. It died down for a while, but now with the expansion we have another chance to positively impact the game. Thus, the discussion rises to the forefront again.
I'm not bitter. I loved BW for a few years, but I have a family and a job and important things to do in life. But, I am passionate about Starcraft, I'm a designer, and I along with many others in the community see how it could be improved to be even better than it is currently and be a more long-term esport. I don't want esports to be several-year flings, I want a pseudo-permanent game that will last a decade or more. I don't care about esports if the games are as exciting as BW. Thus, my affection for SC2 is manifested in my passionate critique and specific suggestions as to how it can be more exciting to a broader audience and for us players and more hardcore fans as well.
This is not unprecedented. In a matter of 2-3 months, Valve/Hidden Path have dramatically improved Counter-Strike:Global Offensive from where it was before. How did they do this? They listened to the pros, REALLY understood what made CS special to begin with, and began making necessary tweaks IMMEDIATELY. This isn't that hard. Blizzard could do the same, and hopefully Sigaty babysits Browder more in the expansions to make sure he doesn't screw SC2 up more.
In China, there is a game streaming site on Sina.com (the biggest websites there is for news, and pretty much everything) kinda like Afreeca for SK or Twitch. Funny how Age of Empire 3 is the number one all time played game and not StarCraft 2
On June 18 2012 08:50 Vindicare605 wrote: Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
This would be understandable in most circumstances, except there are a few huge reasons it isn't.
1 - Starcraft is about big armies. BW armies felt bigger because they took up multiple screens. What is currently 'part of the game' in SC2 is single screen hyper concentrated deathballs. That isn't what made BW successful, nor is it as exciting. At times, it can approach the same level of excitement, but it is more rare. The deathball diminishes the variability in positioning that allows for layers of success in engagements.
2 - It's not just about relative spacing. UNITS ACTUALLY CLIP EACH OTHER. This is bad for player micro, and bad for legibility as it makes the game harder to understand because of the layers of information. This is bad for esports beyond just the psychological army size.
Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing.
To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =)
I don't think it's an exaggeration (or the exaggeration is very minor). 40% more width and 40% more height is enough to double the surface area. Especially when the observer removes the HUD, you get a huge part of the map on the screen at one time.
On June 18 2012 08:50 Vindicare605 wrote: Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
This would be understandable in most circumstances, except there are a few huge reasons it isn't.
1 - Starcraft is about big armies. BW armies felt bigger because they took up multiple screens. What is currently 'part of the game' in SC2 is single screen hyper concentrated deathballs. That isn't what made BW successful, nor is it as exciting. At times, it can approach the same level of excitement, but it is more rare. The deathball diminishes the variability in positioning that allows for layers of success in engagements.
2 - It's not just about relative spacing. UNITS ACTUALLY CLIP EACH OTHER. This is bad for player micro, and bad for legibility as it makes the game harder to understand because of the layers of information. This is bad for esports beyond just the psychological army size.
Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing.
To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =)
I don't think it's an exaggeration (or the exaggeration is very minor). 40% more width and 40% more height is enough to double the surface area. Especially when the observer removes the HUD, you get a huge part of the map on the screen at one time.
Are you talking pixel count? I'm confused, let's talk percent of aspect ratio. Given that, I'd say it's no more than 30% wider. Is the SC2 camera zoomed out further? At any rate, screen proportion alone is not the cause of this.
On June 18 2012 09:47 Fencer710 wrote: I guess no one read my suggestion to slightly increase movement speed across the board and along with that, increase AoE?
A decent proposal. However, SC2 is already pretty fast and on the border of confusion for a casual spectator. This also wouldn't address the psychologically small army size issue.
On June 18 2012 09:32 0neder wrote: Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing.
It can't be laziness, since it's been demonstrated before that a minor change in the editor solves the spacing issue.
Blizzard actually prefers it this way, possibly because it's easier for the casual demographic to play with.
Look guys here is the problems that most are having in StarCraft 2: Unit Clumping Easy solution would be to increase AoE dmg so that you have the incentive of actually splitting your Units!
In Brood War, you can easily clump up your units as well due to archaic AI like Hydralisks are stuck together when moving to one location or Lurkers need to be spread out INDIVIDUALLY and same with tanks to prevent being stormed or hit by Stasis. In BW, there is just as much unit spreading needed. That's because Psionic Storm, Siege Tanks and all those area of effect spells dealt SOOO much more damage to their enemies (Vultures Mines are Area of Effect too).
This is where the argument of instroducing Lurkers instead of Swarm Host comes in. Swarm Hosts merely send out minions out of them. Still doesn't give me any reason for Terran to split as they can just clump up as one blob to fend off against it. You want to see players to do the most inhumane move possible, you want to add the Lurkers where one spine hit can annilate your entire force. Players will have to move their units one by one and that is APM taxing.
But I know that SC2 is meant to target onto a casual fanbase so I doubt they will attempt introducing harder mechanics.
On June 18 2012 10:17 Xiphos wrote: Look guys here is the problems that most are having in StarCraft 2: Unit Clumping Easy solution would be to increase AoE dmg so that you have the incentive of actually splitting your Units!
In Brood War, you can easily clump up your units as well due to archaic AI like Hydralisks are stuck together when moving to one location or Lurkers need to be spread out INDIVIDUALLY and same with tanks to prevent being stormed or hit by Stasis. In BW, there is just as much unit spreading needed. That's because Psionic Storm, Siege Tanks and all those area of effect spells dealt SOOO much more damage to their enemies (Vultures Mines are Area of Effect too).
This is where the argument of instroducing Lurkers instead of Swarm Host comes in. Swarm Hosts merely send out minions out of them. Still doesn't give me any reason for Terran to split as they can just clump up as one blob to fend off against it. You want to see players to do the most inhumane move possible, you want to add the Lurkers where one spine hit can annilate your entire force. Players will have to move their units one by one and that is APM taxing.
But I know that SC2 is meant to target onto a casual fanbase so I doubt they will attempt introducing harder mechanics.
That would be a good start, but it doesn't solve the problem of psychological army size and unit clipping affecting legibility.
On June 18 2012 08:50 Vindicare605 wrote: Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
This would be understandable in most circumstances, except there are a few huge reasons it isn't.
1 - Starcraft is about big armies. BW armies felt bigger because they took up multiple screens. What is currently 'part of the game' in SC2 is single screen hyper concentrated deathballs. That isn't what made BW successful, nor is it as exciting. At times, it can approach the same level of excitement, but it is more rare. The deathball diminishes the variability in positioning that allows for layers of success in engagements.
2 - It's not just about relative spacing. UNITS ACTUALLY CLIP EACH OTHER. This is bad for player micro, and bad for legibility as it makes the game harder to understand because of the layers of information. This is bad for esports beyond just the psychological army size.
Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing.
To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =)
I don't think it's an exaggeration (or the exaggeration is very minor). 40% more width and 40% more height is enough to double the surface area. Especially when the observer removes the HUD, you get a huge part of the map on the screen at one time.
Are you talking pixel count? I'm confused, let's talk percent of aspect ratio. Given that, I'd say it's no more than 30% wider. Is the SC2 camera zoomed out further? At any rate, screen proportion alone is not the cause of this.
I'm just talking about how much stuff you can see on the screen at a time. I think it's because SC2 is played in a higher resolution and a larger wider field of view (???). Not really sure how to objectively compare.
SC2: If you take off the HUD, that's another 20-25% more screen space.
BW:
Also note that Metalopolis (140x140) is a bigger map than Big Game Hunters (128x128). You can see on the minimap how much of the map (or a battle) can fit on the screen at one time.
On June 18 2012 09:47 Fencer710 wrote: I guess no one read my suggestion to slightly increase movement speed across the board and along with that, increase AoE?
A decent proposal. However, SC2 is already pretty fast and on the border of confusion for a casual spectator. This also wouldn't address the psychologically small army size issue.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I thought it was a great game for casual spectators or people who have never even played starcraft it self, unlike watching mobas thats like watching someone play cricket without know the rules which I don't but I understand how mobas work but I think my example holds.
rts is the red army is trying to kill the blue army its simple enough as is just knowing the units and what they do is helpful.
To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things.
On June 18 2012 07:24 Ownos wrote: Because it's Starcraft *2*
More like "random RTS 2", as blizzard did not want to capture any of StarCraft's beauty. If it didn't look like StarCraft in terms of graphics/unit names, etc. people would have a hard time finding similarities between the two beyond the superficial level.
Does it really matter? I would argue that the jump from WC2 -> WC3 is a 10x bigger gap than BW -> SC2. And WC3 is a great RTS game. (Unless you are talking about nostalgia? I'm not really sure why a sequel needs to mimic its predecessor)
It was a great RTS game to be sure, but it still didn't hold a candle to BW as an esport in terms of legibility. Is it really up for debate why sequels should mimic their predecessor? Because the reason they exist is that their predecessor hit upon a winning formula.
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things.
Except, the Phoenix and Corsair do not at all have the same function. It's great to try new things, but just as you keep the new thing when it succeeds, you also revert/replace the new thing when it fails.
On June 18 2012 09:47 Fencer710 wrote: I guess no one read my suggestion to slightly increase movement speed across the board and along with that, increase AoE?
A decent proposal. However, SC2 is already pretty fast and on the border of confusion for a casual spectator. This also wouldn't address the psychologically small army size issue.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I thought it was a great game for casual spectators or people who have never even played starcraft it self, unlike watching mobas thats like watching someone play cricket without know the rules which I don't but I understand how mobas work but I think my example holds.
rts is the red army is trying to kill the blue army its simple enough as is just knowing the units and what they do is helpful.
The rules of Sc2 remain equally simple as army size increases. Having better unit spacing increases legibility and unit recognition, both of which help the casual viewer. Having a more spread out army doesn't make things more confusing, but it does give a more epic feel to the game.
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things.
Except, the Phoenix and Corsair do not at all have the same function. It's great to try new things, but just as you keep the new thing when it succeeds, you also revert/replace the new thing when it fails.
I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
On June 18 2012 09:44 Xiphos wrote: In China, there is a game streaming site on Sina.com (the biggest websites there is for news, and pretty much everything) kinda like Afreeca for SK or Twitch. Funny how Age of Empire 3 is the number one all time played game and not StarCraft 2
because Chinese consumers (and almost all asians beside Japan) are very unlikely to buy games and software in general. They don't have the same respect of intellectual properties as us
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper.
Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design.
If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways.
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper.
Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design.
If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways.
The EXACT same "reset" happened when SC1 went into Brood War.
Medics? Dark Templar? Lurkers?
All of those units were potentially game breaking units and yet they somehow managed to work back then. There were issues in SC1 that weren't ever even solved by Blizzard but eventually later by tournament made maps.
I find it so confusing and hypocritical that you're so eager to praise how good of a game Brood War is after years and years of evolution and yet are so reluctant to allow SC2 that same evolutionary process.
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper.
Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design.
If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways.
The EXACT same "reset" happened when SC1 went into Brood War.
Medics? Dark Templar? Lurkers?
All of those units were potentially game breaking units and yet they somehow managed to work back then. There were issues in SC1 that weren't ever even solved by Blizzard but eventually later by tournament made maps.
I find it so confusing and hypocritical that you're so eager to praise how good of a game Brood War is after years and years of evolution and yet are so reluctant to allow SC2 that same evolutionary process.
First of all, I'm not complaining about imba HotS units. I'm actually doing the opposite and saying there should be more imba splash units in SC2.
Secondly, you're ignoring my point. Starcraft got the foundation right and Brood War added more units. Did Brood War have to re-work unit spacing? Moving shot micro? High ground mechanics? Volatile macro mechanics? The evolutionary design process is easy, it's the intuition and wisdom of the design team that concerns me.
Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
if someone could make a good arguement for why a unit similar to those games would make sc2 better more than WoL, HotS or bw units I'd support it!
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote: If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
You'd have to be extremely naive to pretend that BW was built on strong foundation of "game design, competition and excitement".
The competition and excitement was basically non-existent for years, until Boxer basically dragged the entire scene into the spotlight.
And a foundation of game design...just ask anyone who actually played the game, and they'll tell you the game was plagued with crippling quirks and bugs that were completely unintended. It was pure dumb luck that those glitches enhanced the competitive environment, instead of making it a complete and absolute dud.
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote: If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
You'd have to be extremely naive to pretend that BW was built on strong foundation of "game design, competition and excitement".
The competition and excitement was basically non-existent for years, until Boxer basically dragged the entire scene into the spotlight.
And a foundation of game design...just ask anyone who actually played the game, and they'll tell you the game was plagued with crippling quirks and bugs that were completely unintended. It was pure dumb luck that those glitches enhanced the competitive environment, instead of making it a complete and absolute dud.
Would BW have been chosen as the competitive game if it wasn't really fun to play on a well-designed battle.net and tons of people hadn't been already playing it? Then it was built on a foundation of competition and excitement.
Was a good high ground mechanic luck/glitch? Was units that don't clip each other luck/glitch? Was good unit/race dynamic design luck/glitch? I don't think so.
Sure, MutaStack, etc. were bugs, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about basic essential keys to success.
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote: If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
You'd have to be extremely naive to pretend that BW was built on strong foundation of "game design, competition and excitement".
The competition and excitement was basically non-existent for years, until Boxer basically dragged the entire scene into the spotlight.
And a foundation of game design...just ask anyone who actually played the game, and they'll tell you the game was plagued with crippling quirks and bugs that were completely unintended. It was pure dumb luck that those glitches enhanced the competitive environment, instead of making it a complete and absolute dud.
In the beginning of Brood War, every little single cute tactics brought you a bit of fame. Such as how to wall yourself properly by St.Eangle and Maynarding your workers for maximum economical efficiency based on saturation bringing the players just ahead of the competition. Those were the Pre-LMY days where there was literally endless of possibility of styles. So that defeats your entire point about competition and excitement because it was watching the hatching of an egg that will soon became a majestic dragon.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made form the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might be using a round ball but thats about it!
On June 18 2012 13:50 0neder wrote: Would BW have been chosen as the competitive game if it wasn't really fun to play on a well-designed battle.net and tons of people hadn't been already playing it? Then it was built on a foundation of competition and excitement.
Was a good high ground mechanic luck/glitch? Was units that don't clip each other luck/glitch? Was good unit/race dynamic design luck/glitch? I don't think so.
Sure, MutaStack, etc. were bugs, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about basic essential keys to success.
Yes, units not clipping each other is fairly lucky. Have you seen BW pathing? If you click just right/wrong, they will do the stupidest things imaginable in spaces they should never be able to get through. By today's standards, things that units can screw up in BW should not even be possible.
Yes, good unit/race dynamic was also luck. The designers clearly did things that would be cool, and tweaked things to a point where each race felt "equally cool". No design team is ever going to scrutinize balance for a scene that was ludicrous to even suggest at the time. SC2 started out with the expectation of "competitive balance", while BW started out as "look, RTS with 3 unique races! Awesome!"
On June 18 2012 14:12 WolfintheSheep wrote: No design team is ever going to scrutinize balance for a scene that was ludicrous to even suggest at the time. SC2 started out with the expectation of "competitive balance"Awesome!"
And this was where I think Browder, Kim and their crew went wrong. They were too worried about it being immediately worthy of 5 figure broadcast competition and not messing things up. Kim probably helped ruin the game through diluting stuff, and Browder just isn't as good a designer as the original team.
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things.
The point isnt to turn SC2 into a BW clone, but rather to look at the two and ask yourself how the differences between the two affect the gameplay and watchability as an eSport.
BW had a limit of 12 for groups, SC2 has no limit. It seems to be a no-brainer that SC2 is easier to control, but is that really true? At the start of an engagement in SC2 you usually have one full control group being dragged left/right/up/down in an attempt to get a better position over the opposition. In BW you had to switch between multiple control groups to do the same. But what is the end result for the viewer? In SC2 you get two "deathballs" which engage each other and that doesnt involve a lot of strategy and battle tactics. Sure at the super top level the players will adjust the positioning during the battle, but does SC2 lend a hand to do that for lower level players? Not really, because it is hard to unlearn using the ez-mode big clump of units. So the new version introduced with SC2 is actually bad for the players. Think of it as being presented with a car to go to work in when you only had a bike a few years back, sure it is more comfortable, but you are nevertheless becoming lazy over time.
As an improvement I would think a limit of 24 units per control group should be enough, it just helps your lower level players to get used to controlling multiple groups at the same time. If we are honest to ourselves we should acknowledge that a basic human trait is lazyness and any limitation forces you to overcome this. I am just saying this to preempt comments of "oh people can put their units into several groups already" ... I know that, but the "weaker beings" will still go for the lazy 1-control-group option.
BW had clunky unit movement AI, SC2 has "perfect" unit movement In BW it was a pain to position your dragoons in a tight formation to use recall on; in SC2 the units actually move together in a tight ball (depending on movement speed of the units) and rarely have to go around each other. This change between the two games has forced several major adjustments to the balancing for AoE effects (radius and damage) and it is the reason why buildings are destroyed very fast. Attacking dps is maximized for the area which the attackers occupy. It is also part of the reason why the Carrier is so useless, because the ball of marines is as tight as possible and thus very efficient in shooting down the interceptors. Spread out and deep defensive formations are more or less useless in SC2, but they were a tactical option in BW.
So the question becomes: Does this "perfection" really improve the gameplay or are there some things which get lost on the way? IMO there would be a gain from having units MOVE in a less than perfect fashion (imagine a "marine-sized hole" between each marine in a moving clump of marines), but once the fighting starts they would get a little closer. This would allow AoE effects to get a bigger radius again and it becomes a question of skill to dodge them by keeping your units spread out more ... which reduces the damage output per space occupied by the army.
BW had no reactor/larva inject/chronoboost/warp gate These mechanics increase the production speed and seem to be speeding up the game. Notice that I said "seem to", because its actually not true. The fights simply had fewer units in them. Were they less exciting because of it? Not really, because you could focus more on individual units as a viewer. The three mechanics to speed up production are a nice and original thought, but they have pushed the game in a direction where production ability seems more important than actual battle skill. The slow reproduction speed for techlab-based units puts terrans at a distinct disadvantage in a "both armies killed each other" situation because the other two races can rebuild the core of their army a lot faster.
Personally I think these mechanics should be removed since the reactor cant really be adjusted due to the binary nature of it, but that seems kinda impossible. Maybe the reactor gets replaced by an upgrade in the tech lab which speeds up production in general (3 stages and +50% prodution speed total at level 3), but thats the only thing I can come up with. Larva inject then only produces 2 extra larvae and warp gate actually has an increased cooldown for warp gates ... which gives protoss the option to keep their gateways for faster production instead of the "produce anywhere under power".
To sum it up: There are quite a few ways to make SC2 more BW-like where BW had advantages. Currently SC2 seems to me like a bad sequel to a movie where the director/producers think they make a better movie by just increasing the kill count and scale of the explosions. The story and details are just as important IMO.
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote: I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper.
Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design.
If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways.
The EXACT same "reset" happened when SC1 went into Brood War.
Medics? Dark Templar? Lurkers?
All of those units were potentially game breaking units and yet they somehow managed to work back then. There were issues in SC1 that weren't ever even solved by Blizzard but eventually later by tournament made maps.
I find it so confusing and hypocritical that you're so eager to praise how good of a game Brood War is after years and years of evolution and yet are so reluctant to allow SC2 that same evolutionary process.
First of all, BW's units were actually preplanned when they released vanilla starcraft. Alot of the units they thought would work they "kept" behind for the expansion. (IIRC, the valkyrie was designed for starcraft, but they saved it for the expansion).
BW came out literally 6 months after vanilla starcraft though, so you could almost say that it can be considered a standalone product.
Personally I'm happy with the Phoenix and how it works out, save for the fact that it shoots while moving without you targeting anything. Contrary to what Oneder believes, I see it doing more or less the same role, scouting, denial of overlord scouting, and air superiority. It can even do some minor ground unit harassment, which is really nice bonus. However, the dynamic between scourge and corsairs is nowhere near as exciting to watch as the dynamic between phoenix and corruptors. In BW, air superiority went to the person with more control. In SC2, it's a lot harder to see that flash of brilliance, if at all, when one player suddenly wrestles control of the air from another and begins to abuse it.
I also don't really see why they are redesigning the tempest to be a siege unit when Carriers more or less could function the same way if they could be micro'd well.
It's also strange that they'd focus on splitting units into more specialized roles, since D. Browder tends to go on about having more units is a bad thing for players (which I think is right, no one really wants to memorize 28 different units for each race, and it's also burdensome for viewers/newer players). Things like the Viking/Banshee with the Wraith, and the Roach/Hydra with just the original Hydra would go a long way in making more versatile unit composition for each of the 3 races.
Something very interesting to me is how SC2 is basically turning into BW with better graphics. I guess some people take the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach more than others.
On June 18 2012 13:50 0neder wrote: Would BW have been chosen as the competitive game if it wasn't really fun to play on a well-designed battle.net and tons of people hadn't been already playing it? Then it was built on a foundation of competition and excitement.
Was a good high ground mechanic luck/glitch? Was units that don't clip each other luck/glitch? Was good unit/race dynamic design luck/glitch? I don't think so.
Sure, MutaStack, etc. were bugs, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about basic essential keys to success.
Yes, units not clipping each other is fairly lucky. Have you seen BW pathing? If you click just right/wrong, they will do the stupidest things imaginable in spaces they should never be able to get through. By today's standards, things that units can screw up in BW should not even be possible.
Yes, good unit/race dynamic was also luck. The designers clearly did things that would be cool, and tweaked things to a point where each race felt "equally cool". No design team is ever going to scrutinize balance for a scene that was ludicrous to even suggest at the time. SC2 started out with the expectation of "competitive balance", while BW started out as "look, RTS with 3 unique races! Awesome!"
I'll give high ground to you.
Yes there were stupid things that BW units could do, but as someone who plays it at a relatively low level, it's not as bad as all that. But regardless, no-one is asking for buggy dragoons. I'm pretty sure you could get dynamic unit pathing without that. However, although your units could misbehave, they also had the capability of being controlled very precisely and THAT is what SC2 is missing in a lot of it's units. (Due to sluggish turn around time and lack of moving attack amongst other things. I wouldn't be suprised if Battlenet's latency was another limiting factor.)
Also, so what if some of the best things were not designed, but due to luck. Why not embrace it and put it in intentionally if it created so much good gameplay?
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
Thre's also the small point that it's...you know...STAR CRAFT and not "space fighters unite, version 1". And people want it to be as good as posible, not a BW clone. But at this point in time, BW is vastly superior at least as far as unit design goes. Time will tell, but DB ignoring all the major critiques and keeping the "go play BW" line...is disarming.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
People on SC2 forums/blogs whine about racial imbalance 24/7. Yet they still play the game.
Same goes here. Sc2 is a *good* game, but it is missing a lot of things that make it *great*.
On June 18 2012 10:17 Xiphos wrote: Look guys here is the problems that most are having in StarCraft 2: Unit Clumping Easy solution would be to increase AoE dmg so that you have the incentive of actually splitting your Units!
In Brood War, you can easily clump up your units as well due to archaic AI like Hydralisks are stuck together when moving to one location or Lurkers need to be spread out INDIVIDUALLY and same with tanks to prevent being stormed or hit by Stasis. In BW, there is just as much unit spreading needed. That's because Psionic Storm, Siege Tanks and all those area of effect spells dealt SOOO much more damage to their enemies (Vultures Mines are Area of Effect too).
This is where the argument of instroducing Lurkers instead of Swarm Host comes in. Swarm Hosts merely send out minions out of them. Still doesn't give me any reason for Terran to split as they can just clump up as one blob to fend off against it. You want to see players to do the most inhumane move possible, you want to add the Lurkers where one spine hit can annilate your entire force. Players will have to move their units one by one and that is APM taxing.
But I know that SC2 is meant to target onto a casual fanbase so I doubt they will attempt introducing harder mechanics.
Also the pathing. We obviously don't want BW pathing but something similar to WC3's would probably be better.
On June 18 2012 09:12 alexanderzero wrote: Everyone is like "oh it's easy to remove unit clumping" but it's not that easy. You have to do one of two things:
-Make the hitboxes for every unit artificially large. -Make the units NOT take the shortest path to their destination.
Those are both terrible choices. Which one would you pick?
Bullshit. Try playing armies of Exigo. It's a game really similar to BW gameplay wise. Its pathing works just as fine as SC2's, except there is no unit clumping the way you see in SC2, and by extension, no deathballs.
You don't have to break the engine to fix that issue. The only thing required is blizzard swallowing their pride and admitting that the most advanced engine is not necesserily the best one gameplay wise.
On June 18 2012 07:24 Ownos wrote: Because it's Starcraft *2*
More like "random RTS 2", as blizzard did not want to capture any of StarCraft's beauty. If it didn't look like StarCraft in terms of graphics/unit names, etc. people would have a hard time finding similarities between the two beyond the superficial level.
Does it really matter? I would argue that the jump from WC2 -> WC3 is a 10x bigger gap than BW -> SC2. And WC3 is a great RTS game. (Unless you are talking about nostalgia? I'm not really sure why a sequel needs to mimic its predecessor)
Except BW -> SC2 was clearly not meant t be the kind of a jump WC2 -> WC3 was. Blizzars aimed for a standard RTS, but refused to study BW's gameplay and thus ignored nearly all the concepts that made BW so successful. At east they accidentally did some things well, e.g. Marines.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made form the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might be using a round ball but thats about it!
On June 18 2012 14:09 Benjamin99 wrote: No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
If you call it Starcraft 2, it automatically has something to do with BW, even if it's a Mario game. Don't be ridiculous.
Why not look at BW and take ALL of what worked and redo the rest? Why be selective about the things that really worked well and add to that?
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made form the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might be using a round ball but thats about it!
On June 18 2012 14:18 Rabiator wrote: BW had a limit of 12 for groups, SC2 has no limit. As an improvement I would think a limit of 24 units per control group should be enough, it just helps your lower level players to get used to controlling multiple groups at the same time. If we are honest to ourselves we should acknowledge that a basic human trait is lazyness and any limitation forces you to overcome this. I am just saying this to preempt comments of "oh people can put their units into several groups already" ... I know that, but the "weaker beings" will still go for the lazy 1-control-group option.
That's really not the problem. It's not laziness, it's that everything dies extremely fast and that there's not much to optimize. Anything but the smallest of adjustments have questionable gains, as anytime you move your army it'll suffer a devastating loss of dps. The game simply rewards deathballs and big amove engagements more than skirmishes, and that's really why a lot of people are upset with the game. The skill ceiling has been set very low through the game's mechanics. Trying to push it higher has been very difficult.
On June 18 2012 14:18 Rabiator wrote: Currently SC2 seems to me like a bad sequel to a movie where the director/producers think they make a better movie by just increasing the kill count and scale of the explosions.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made form the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might be using a round ball but thats about it!
Because we are trying to help.
Help who? I'd guess many are quite happy as is.
They mean how BW was able to attract so much support in the foreign scene.
They mean how BW is outdoing SC2 in Korea in terms of support and broadcasting.
Because isn't it obvious? BW was bigger in the foreign scene than SC2 and Kespa prefers BW over SC2 in Korea.
We should learn from BW on how to...
Wait what? Foreign support of BW was near non-existent and Kespa is switching to SC2? Hmm.... I guess.... What does SC2 have to learn from BW again?
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
On June 18 2012 14:18 Rabiator wrote: BW had a limit of 12 for groups, SC2 has no limit. As an improvement I would think a limit of 24 units per control group should be enough, it just helps your lower level players to get used to controlling multiple groups at the same time. If we are honest to ourselves we should acknowledge that a basic human trait is lazyness and any limitation forces you to overcome this. I am just saying this to preempt comments of "oh people can put their units into several groups already" ... I know that, but the "weaker beings" will still go for the lazy 1-control-group option.
That's really not the problem. It's not laziness, it's that everything dies extremely fast and that there's not much to optimize. Anything but the smallest of adjustments have questionable gains, as anytime you move your army it'll suffer a devastating loss of dps. The game simply rewards deathballs and big amove engagements more than skirmishes, and that's really why a lot of people are upset with the game. The skill ceiling has been set very low through the game's mechanics. Trying to push it higher has been very difficult.
On June 18 2012 14:18 Rabiator wrote: Currently SC2 seems to me like a bad sequel to a movie where the director/producers think they make a better movie by just increasing the kill count and scale of the explosions.
That seems to be Blizzard as of late.
is that why the top SC2 players win through spread out small engagements instead of death balls? Because a lot of what you're talking about sounds like user error. Play better.
Blizz is making their game too noob friendly, just like what happened with WoW. They want casual gamers to buy the game and play too. bad idea imo. anyways i digress.
I do not want sc2 have all the similar/same units as bw. I love bw, sc2 will never top it, cuz the lack of graphics, the glitches, mechanical flaws, etc are what made bw great. Somehow all those 'flaws' made the game very balanced and require high skill level. If sc2 has all same units only difference would be the graphics and that it now is noob friendly with everything in one group, grids in building placement, etc. Sc2 is a different game on its own. not a sequel of bw.
Thus, sc2 needs sc2 units. All their 'new' units in HoTS (announced so far) are pretty much ideas that came from bw, or prev sc2. nothing new sadly. viper is very similar to defiler (consume changed from unit to buildings, very original...), swarmhost (cross between lurkers and bl), that thing with entomb (arbiter, except stasis field is imba ass mineral block), mothership core (pretty much protoss planetary, seriously).
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made form the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might be using a round ball but thats about it!
Because we are trying to help.
Help who? I'd guess many are quite happy as is.
They mean how BW was able to attract so much support in the foreign scene.
They mean how BW is outdoing SC2 in Korea in terms of support and broadcasting.
Because isn't it obvious? BW was bigger in the foreign scene than SC2 and Kespa prefers BW over SC2 in Korea.
We should learn from BW on how to...
Wait what? Foreign support of BW was near non-existent and Kespa is switching to SC2? Hmm.... I guess.... What does SC2 have to learn from BW again?
Wow what an insightful and constructive comment. Let's just close this thread because you obviously have everything figured out.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
I predict the forums are going to be a less pleasurable place to be around for the next several months.
I miss when people just complained that forcefields were op.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
On June 18 2012 16:01 Jumperer wrote: BW was designed by the original blizzard where creativity was king. SC2 was designed by the post-WoW blizzard where the company's mentality change from creating legendary games to making as much money as possible. Blizzard doesn't really give a fuck about the progamers, you or me. Current blizzard really has fucked up game design mentality. They played it safe to maximize profit and to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They went from making classical music like L.Beethoven to pop music ala J.Bieber.
Why would they remove things that made starcraft 1 exciting? mutalisk micro, vulture micro, spider mines, reaver control, lurker. They should've use those units as a foundation to build the game around instead of doing whatever the fuck they are doing. They only care about the mass because that's where the money is. Dustin Browder doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Units get added or removed every other week. They are just throwing shits at the wall and hope it sticks. Think about it, what kind of fucking expansion pack remove units from the game? Expand does not equal remove. That's the first redflag.
Look at these epic game design concepts.
Hydralisk, the most iconic unit in SC, became a worthless unit in SC2, but fear not, we have this thing called Roach. It's basically hydralisk that can shoot ground only. It even spit green shits too! What revolutionary creative game design.
Marauder? it's basically a marine that shoot a little bit slower and do more damage to armour unit. In C&C we have different type of units that do the same thing from the same range from the same production building so might as well put that in SC2 too.
Infester? Let give it plague, but plague was overpowered so we'll shorten the plague. Also let's paint it green and make it stop everything so people doesn't know that it's plague.
colossus? I guess reaver was too good so let replace it with the most ugly and boring unit in the entire RTS history.
And for those who said that there is nothing wrong with the game because its popular and people still plays it. you automatically lose the debate by default. Popular does not equal good. call of duty is popular, but it sucks. justin bieber sell ton of albums, but he still sucks. Hitler won 99% of germany support during WW2 and yet he is still a terrible person.
Hitler? I believe the real problem is that BW was such a pinnacle of creativity and game design, and the new dev team (which I agree is not nearly as talented, but they still have interesting ideas) is trying to top that and is just barely shying close. The game's still interesting though, although their recent updates (queen buff) have been breaking the balance they managed to stumble upon after nearly a year and a half of shifting imbalances.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
Yeah, I definitely agree about the inadequacy.. (when SC2 beta came out, I despised it because the game bored me compared to BW)
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
You can still play BW, it didn't get replaced. I think there are also still some BW tournaments that you can watch and you are always free to start hosting your own BW tournaments with others that don't like Starcraft 2...
It's not the end of BW unless you make it the end.
In some cases it would really be cool to see a reintroduction of some BW units but it is not necessary. Blizzard is doin a great job by creating newly designed units. And those of you who complain about the new Units like the colossus, the infestor or something else need not to play Starcraft 2. BW is still there, so if you want BW units then play BW. If you want something new then go and play SC2. Just my opinion.
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote: [quote] Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
Yeah, I definitely agree about the inadequacy.. (when SC2 beta came out, I despised it because the game bored me compared to BW)
However, no need to call others "motherfucker" :x
Well, just pointing out why he, and many others are feeling so angrily about it. I just deal with it by refraining from posting nowadays.
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote: [quote] Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
You can still play BW, it didn't get replaced. I think there are also still some BW tournaments that you can watch and you are always free to start hosting your own BW tournaments with others that don't like Starcraft 2...
It's not the end of BW unless you make it the end.
On June 17 2012 00:59 DemigodcelpH wrote: Because Dustin Browder is cancer with his "go play BW it's a great game" line. He has no talent, is too old, and isn't suited for the job he has. Him and his goons prefer their pride over admitting they introduced fundamental balance flaws that can be fixed by taking a hint from some of the BW units.
Sorry about the negative tone, but it sums up the answer to your question.
User was temp banned for this post.
I'm sorry guys, but that's the truth. He said it with wrong tone maybe, but he has the point. The people who say "hey go make a better game" just ignore the fact. We are not game developers. We are gamers. But we are not stupid, we can make the difference between good and bad game design. Another typical answer is: "it would be too boring to copy the BW units". Well, as much as I hate to say that, it would much more fun their than new units. What's wrong with copying the old units? I mean marines are still there, zerglings are still there, but even tier 3 units like ultras and BCs are there. So it's not a whole new game, that's why its STARCRAFT 2, and not Blizzard New RTS Game or whatever. If we just bring back lurker and goliath (for example) it won't make the game more boring. It's like saying we shouldn't have hydras because they already existed in BW. Also, if you look at which units they didn't bring back, it will be another interesting issue. They didn't bring back lurkers, reavers, vultures, corsairs etc. And with what have they replaced them? Roaches, colloses, hellions, pheonixes. If you still can't see the pattern, I will explain. They replaced all micro intensive units with a-move units. Coincidence? I think not.
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote: Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
I predict the forums are going to be a less pleasurable place to be around for the next several months.
I miss when people just complained that forcefields were op.
I hated that time period. I hate it when anyone complains anything is OP. They are the scourge that prevents a game from reaching a high level of play. If BW got nerfed every time a Terran yelled imba when their SCVs all died from a DT drop which they were too slow in detecting, or when a Protoss stupidly decided to walk across a field of lurkers without detection, the game would be a very stale and very boring.
Yeah, you can't remove unit clumping or change unit pathing, and there's no way in hell you'll remove MBS and automine. Yeah I get that. And you don't want to put in BW units at all.
But what you really need to look at is the underlying principles of what the units in BW could accomplish: So you get that lurkers are similar to banelings in that they are really good against large clumps of small units. But you need to understand two steps further.
Lurkers are a cloaked "siege" unit, which has a potential for both offensive and defensive use. But you need to delve even deeper than that.
Unlike banelings, whilst they can also be burrowed and set off as remote detonations, you had to be extremely careful around small numbers of lurkers, and a large number of lurkers would actually delay the Terran army significantly. They had to spend a large amount of time to get a specific number of Science vessels to irradiate or take precious time to siege/unsiege tanks. At which point, Zerg has gotten 4 base gas, and you are in extremely deep shit.
Perhaps they aren't intending for the swarm host to be anything like this (which would be a bad idea imo), but if they are, it doesn't feel like a unit that can delay or contain anything. It seems like you can just walk units over
I think the underlying flaw of the "deathball" is not actually the high DPS of the units, but that the game does not slowly play out. One player does not slowly edge to victory, or play with a marginal advantage. It just seems like a massive storm of chaos, and there does not seem to be that many decisions involved. For example, the last GSL finals. One player gets a large amount of BCs, and the only real decision seemingly made is to vortex the BCs at the correct moment. There didn't seem to be any way that Protoss would have been able to outplay or outmicro Terran at that point.
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote: [quote] Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3 Concussive shells - from WC3 Hero Units - from WC3 Super long range high supply units - from C&C And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
You can still play BW, it didn't get replaced. I think there are also still some BW tournaments that you can watch and you are always free to start hosting your own BW tournaments with others that don't like Starcraft 2...
It's not the end of BW unless you make it the end.
Way to miss the point completely.
Those of us who are longtime fans of BW wanted SC2 to be the next step in the evolution of the game. We wanted it to be an improvement; something better built while standing on the shoulders of giants. Instead, what we got were huge steps backwards (or sideways into C&C territory).
The SC2 design team's philosophy has clearly been geared towards profitability (i.e. attracting the much larger casual crowd) and justifying their jobs (i.e. making things different for the sake of making them different). While some of that is good and necessary to ensure the continued growth of Starcraft, it's a long-term disaster in the making. For those of us who have loved Starcraft for years, that's unacceptable, and that's why we're trying our best to educate, spread the word, and hopefully convince Blizzard to listen to reason.
No I dont troll, My point is starcraft 2 got nothing todo with BW just like it got nothing todo with warcraft 3. Yea it might have mechanics and spells that are similar but isnt that becuase the games are made from the same company?
I really cant understand why BW fans keep trying to make starcraft 2 into BW. They are not the same just like football and handball arnt the same yea they might both be using a round ball to play the game but thats about it!
How can you write this in the same sentence you claim not to be trolling?
Because he honestly believes that they are different games?
Theres a distinct difference in wording. Believing that they are different games is not the same as the two games having nothing to do with each other.
Ofcourse the games got something todo with eachother but thats mostly becuase of a smart business concept using name recognition to sell a new RTS game to new users and old customers. When I tryed BW it felt so completly different I really felt I was playing a completly new game. And proberly the same thing happend when BW,C&C and warcraft 3 players tryed starcraft 2 for the first time. Im a big fan of RTS games but each game are pretty unique you cant really compare them only thing they got in commen are they are RTS games.
So I stand by my opinion and btw plz refrain from calling me a troll just becuase I dont got the same opinion as others
OH SHIT, I TRIED TO PLAY STARCRAFT AND IT FELT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER RTS GAMES. OTHER PEOPLE MUST FEEL THE SAME WAY I FEEL TOO BECAUSE I AM THE STANDARD HUMAN THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS. IN CONCLUSION, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMPARE THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL DIFFERENT. DID I MENTION THAT I'M ALSO A BIG FAN OF RTS GAMES!!!!!!
First of all, learn how to type properly. How do you expect people to take you seriously? It's fucking tried, not "tryed" and Yes motherfucker I can compare them as the post below explain.
[stolen post from another thread] On May 31 2012 03:01 captainshards wrote: But, a minor rant here, ive noticed so much use of the whole "objective/subjective" argument to validate ANYTHING and ANY opinion online. It seems as if people learn the definitions of those words and run rampant trying to teach the world a lesson in logic. But what never gets said is that sometimes when you use a theory or a concept, its totally great until you realize that life and reality isnt always summed up by theory and concept. There are realities. You can say al day long that there is no right and wrong its all opinion but we are trying to live in a society that functions. A "tool". And a tool can be judged at how good of a tool it is and objectivity/subjectivity loses some of its shine in these types of discussions. You and i both can argue which hammer is better but in the end there is a chance one hammer will break while the other does not. Therefore that is a better hammer. A better tool. Why? Because it does a better job of putting nails in. It doesnt matter opinion, either the nail goes in or does not. One could argue that the elements of BW just happen to have more tendency to create the types of situations that lead to surprise or tension in the average human beings mind. Therefore it is a better tool for that job. If you have two calculators and one gives you back a wrong answer every random 20 calculations that is a worse tool and it doesnt matter what your opinion is because that particular tool is designed to calculate accurately.
This is not a point im making to argue for or against BW vs SC2 because i personally dont care anymore which one is better. Nor do i know in the end which game will be "better". Im not even remotely qualified to predict the future of this game. I hoe for it to be better because i like RTS games and i like high level play. I just get tired of "objective/subjective" arguments that are treated as the end all of logic because they arent. A tool can be judged. Arguing which game is better and feeling satisfied that there is no answer is worse for the game than questioning what actually might be better in either one and trying to reach for that goal to make SC2 the best tool it can possibly be to entertain human beings. If you cite subjectivity etc and call it a day you never move beyond that and you never really solve any problems that may exist. The only thing you do that way is feel better about your own opinion.
You are really agressive maybe you should take a chill pill
when something you've loved/admired is being replaced by what you see as completely inadequate, I think it's a little difficult to be "chill"
You can still play BW, it didn't get replaced. I think there are also still some BW tournaments that you can watch and you are always free to start hosting your own BW tournaments with others that don't like Starcraft 2...
It's not the end of BW unless you make it the end.
Way to miss the point completely.
Those of us who are longtime fans of BW wanted SC2 to be the next step in the evolution of the game. We wanted it to be an improvement; something better built while standing on the shoulders of giants. Instead, what we got were huge steps backwards (or sideways into C&C territory).
The SC2 design team's philosophy has clearly been geared towards profitability (i.e. attracting the much larger casual crowd) and justifying their jobs (i.e. making things different for the sake of making them different). While some of that is good and necessary to ensure the continued growth of Starcraft, it's a long-term disaster in the making. For those of us who have loved Starcraft for years, that's unacceptable, and that's why we're trying our best to educate, spread the word, and hopefully convince Blizzard to listen to reason.
I'm so glad that there are still people who think like me. That's exactly my thought. But there isn't just a problem with SC2, it's about the whole Blizzard. Just take a look at Diablo 3, it has same problems compared to Diablo 1/2 like SC2 compared to BW. For example: you don't choose skills, you just get them for free (no brainer), or the whole crafting with random attributes.
On June 18 2012 16:54 Roth wrote: Blizzard is doin a great job by creating newly designed units. And those of you who complain about the new Units like the colossus, the infestor or something else need not to play Starcraft 2.
Just by creating any new unit, Blizzard does a great job? could you set the bar any lower? Maybe your a guy who plays a game for a few months or maybe a year, but lots of players want games like CS and CS that they can play for decades that mature esports communities can develop around.
You know, I want to watch Flash, Jaedong, Fantasy, etc. play Sc2 for a long time, but if the game isn't good enough they may just retire or go to LoL or something. I barely even play, I'm a SC fan and I now that I will soon only be able to watch SC2, I hardly think you can honestly suggest I be complacent with whatever the crap SC2 turns out to be, regardless of any flaws.
A community like that of BW only develops around an amazing game that thousands of players fall in love with and stay in love with for many years. Those games only happen very rarely. IMO, Counter-Strike and Brood War are the only to reach that pinnacle so far.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
On June 18 2012 16:54 Roth wrote: In some cases it would really be cool to see a reintroduction of some BW units but it is not necessary. Blizzard is doin a great job by creating newly designed units. And those of you who complain about the new Units like the colossus, the infestor or something else need not to play Starcraft 2. BW is still there, so if you want BW units then play BW. If you want something new then go and play SC2. Just my opinion.
Yes I don't know anything about game design or anything but I like SC2 because it's the only esport game i've ever seen or known so it's awesome. colossus? Awesome unit, I like how big it is and the laser that comes out of it when it attack is pretty awesome.
Way to contribute to the discussion buddy. You ignored the entire thread and type the same thing that every 5 years old sc2 says.
Using your logic, Star Wars Episode II is better than Star Wars Episode IV because it's newer.
Nobody wants SC2 to become BW. We just want to play a better game not a watered down C&C with half assed SC units. At the rate this game design pattern is going, It's not going to last very long after the last expansion pack. People will get sick of deathball vs deathball battle. The only reason that SC2 is e sport is because blizzard pumped so much money into it and that BW was so great that the name "starcraft" alone is enough to sell video games.
SC2 regressed in every possible way. Battle.net 2 are you fucking kidding me? Compare Bnet 1 and Bnet 2. They can't even fucking get that shit right. At least call of duty added in different maps and weapons every year.
And guess what, we still have no LAN. shows how much blizzard care about making money and appealing to the mass. Just look at diablo3. That's right, the game is so revolutionary with the online market system.
go be mad somewhere else, like the broodwar forum. Isn't that the whole point of creating that forum? so mad broodwar people can bitch about sc2 there?
This isn't a discussion, its just going back into the good old brood war > sc2 elitist bashing, and if blizz doesn't do anything to suck up to your own personal liking, then it sucked blah blah blah
if you think HOTS is going the wrong direction, then you are arguing for the sakes of OPINION and BROODWAR BEST GAME 4EVAR. get over it, the game is in a decline because its old and people tastes have changed
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
Yes, we can see how successfull BW is these days, flocks of sponsors are trying to get contracts with the growing amount of professional teams... oh, wait, i think i stumbled into your daydream...
SC2 is not BW. SC2 is not C&C. SC2 is not WC3. SC2 is SC2. It's a different game and you don't have to like it. Others do like it. It's different, it doesn't have lurkers, it doesn't have spider mines, it doesn't have the epic BW terran music but it's a good game in it's own right.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
On June 18 2012 16:54 Roth wrote: In some cases it would really be cool to see a reintroduction of some BW units but it is not necessary. Blizzard is doin a great job by creating newly designed units. And those of you who complain about the new Units like the colossus, the infestor or something else need not to play Starcraft 2. BW is still there, so if you want BW units then play BW. If you want something new then go and play SC2. Just my opinion.
Yes I don't know anything about game design or anything but I like SC2 because it's the only esport game i've ever seen or known so it's awesome. colossus? Awesome unit, I like how big it is and the laser that comes out of it when it attack is pretty awesome.
Way to contribute to the discussion buddy. You ignored the entire thread and type the same thing that every 5 years old sc2 says.
Using your logic, Star Wars Episode II is better than Star Wars Episode IV because it's newer.
Nobody wants SC2 to become BW. We just want to play a better game not a watered down C&C with half assed SC units. At the rate this game design pattern is going, It's not going to last very long after the last expansion pack. People will get sick of deathball vs deathball battle. The only reason that SC2 is e sport is because blizzard pumped so much money into it and that BW was so great that the name "starcraft" alone is enough to sell video games.
SC2 regressed in every possible way. Battle.net 2 are you fucking kidding me? Compare Bnet 1 and Bnet 2. They can't even fucking get that shit right. At least call of duty added in different maps and weapons every year.
And guess what, we still have no LAN. shows how much blizzard care about making money and appealing to the mass. Just look at diablo3. That's right, the game is so revolutionary with the online market system.
go be mad somewhere else, like the broodwar forum. Isn't that the whole point of creating that forum? so mad broodwar people can bitch about sc2 there?
This isn't a discussion, its just going back into the good old brood war > sc2 elitist bashing, and if blizz doesn't do anything to suck up to your own personal liking, then it sucked blah blah blah
if you think HOTS is going the wrong direction, then you are arguing for the sakes of OPINION and BROODWAR BEST GAME 4EVAR. get over it, the game is in a decline because its old and people tastes have changed
How about you try to explain why I was wrong instead of using the "new and popular = better" logic. Oh that's right you cant, you ain't got nothing son. It's not a discussion, because what I said is true. You don't know what you are talking about and it shows. You don't even know why you like the game. Your mind is a slave to media brainwashing. They convinced you that new is always better so you'll have to waste your money on new shits all the time. Unfortunately, you're going to have to step it up because I know how to use logic pretty well and I'm not going to let you get away with your stupid shits.
It's not elitist bashing, it's called truth. Learn to open your fucking mind.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think was better, the older star wars movies or the newer star wars movies? Explain why.
why should I waste my time debating with you? nobody is going to debate with a mad crybaby that doesn't seem to be capable of looking things from different sides. Firebat was just so much more microable than marauders right? my response was the exact appropriate one for you
meh totally agree on the warhound. I feel the same about the goliath missing. But I totally get blizzards stance tho : they probably dont want to release units that they didn't invent, they want this baby (sc2) to be completely theirs.
EDIT : however I do not agree with the argument 'ppl will be pissed that they release the same units'
People who have not played broodwar still get new units; new units to them that is. And most people who HAVE played broodwar probably WANT to see some of those cool older units back instead of some of the new units.
On June 18 2012 16:54 Roth wrote: Blizzard is doin a great job by creating newly designed units. And those of you who complain about the new Units like the colossus, the infestor or something else need not to play Starcraft 2.
Just by creating any new unit, Blizzard does a great job? could you set the bar any lower? Maybe your a guy who plays a game for a few months or maybe a year, but lots of players want games like CS and CS that they can play for decades that mature esports communities can develop around.
You know, I want to watch Flash, Jaedong, Fantasy, etc. play Sc2 for a long time, but if the game isn't good enough they may just retire or go to LoL or something. I barely even play, I'm a SC fan and I now that I will soon only be able to watch SC2, I hardly think you can honestly suggest I be complacent with whatever the crap SC2 turns out to be, regardless of any flaws.
A community like that of BW only develops around an amazing game that thousands of players fall in love with and stay in love with for many years. Those games only happen very rarely. IMO, Counter-Strike and Brood War are the only to reach that pinnacle so far.
Flash said that he really enjoys SC II so I think him going to LoL will not be the biggest concern
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
If BW was timeless it would not die this year. Recreating BW comepletely only with better graphics would mean using the same "bad" mechanics and pathings etc that only existed in the first place because of the engine of that time. Only very few people would want that and you cannot make a game for a few thousand people if you want to make money instead of losing it.
I still don't understand why the Colossus gets so much hate, it can walk over cliffs and be microed in really cool ways due to that. It is VERY fragile if not positioned correctly with anti air and anti ground support. Essentially it is a mobile but less damaging version of the Siegetank (High range, High AOE Damage, dies fast to very few units without support/good positioning) I don't see people complain about the Siegetank at all...
There are only two Units I really hate in SCII right now, Roaches and Infestors.
Roaches are simply broke, being maxed at 11:00 with little to no effort... come on!!
Neural Parasite, though highly underused can make zerg unstoppable with Broodlord Infestor (Vortex on P Units instead of Z)
So, I think there are a ton of people who hate on SCII Colossi, you name it, just for the sake of hating and showing who elite they are..
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
Yes, we can see how successfull BW is these days, flocks of sponsors are trying to get contracts with the growing amount of professional teams... oh, wait, i think i stumbled into your daydream...
SC2 is not BW. SC2 is not C&C. SC2 is not WC3. SC2 is SC2. It's a different game and you don't have to like it. Others do like it. It's different, it doesn't have lurkers, it doesn't have spider mines, it doesn't have the epic BW terran music but it's a good game in it's own right.
I can't actually debate with you because everything you said is the truth so I'm going to dodge teh argument completely by saying that you should stop playing SC2.
Let me educate you. BW lasted 10+ years as ESPORT and then SC2 killed it not because it was a better video game. It was due to the fact that Blizzard mastered their marketing strategy(Pump shitload of money to tournaments) and knew how to sell games that appeal to the mass.
The old blizzard sell games because the games were amazing. The new blizzard make above average games(to the casual players however they are amazing) and the market everything so well that it sell.
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Yes, I can make a random statement with no backup whatsoever and assume that it's true.
Blizzard dies BIT pump a lot of money into tournaments, they actually gain a portion of the prizepool.. If you want to debate something, don't make up "facts" on the spot.. The reason why SC 2 is so big is that it is SC 2. it was big before the Beta started. And I really do not understand why it is inferior to BW. Yes, it is a lot less demanding in terms of mechanics, however you can still multitask like a god, by controlling 2 drops at a time, while moving your army and still having decent macro.
Also it is a bit more micro and strategy oriented, I do not think this is a bad thing.
Overall BW would not sell because no one would bother to struggle with the mechanics, only selecting 12 Units at a time? You have to click every single production building individually? No one would bother with a new game that come with those features.
Also, all this time people talk about BW not SC. There are a lot more casting Units yet to come which will possibly make the game a lot more interesting, so chill it is only the first of 3! parts so far.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example
Your pc practically doubles its power every few years. The computer you're using now is a super computer not even a generation before. Games will have to follow technology
sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", some will be very competitive and popular, then eventually something else will come replace them.
There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it until next installment or something better comes out
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
Yes, we can see how successfull BW is these days, flocks of sponsors are trying to get contracts with the growing amount of professional teams... oh, wait, i think i stumbled into your daydream...
SC2 is not BW. SC2 is not C&C. SC2 is not WC3. SC2 is SC2. It's a different game and you don't have to like it. Others do like it. It's different, it doesn't have lurkers, it doesn't have spider mines, it doesn't have the epic BW terran music but it's a good game in it's own right.
I can't actually debate with you because everything you said is the truth so I'm going to dodge teh argument completely by saying that you should stop playing SC2.
Let me educate you. BW lasted 10+ years as ESPORT and then SC2 killed it not because it was a better video game. It was due to the fact that Blizzard mastered their marketing strategy(Pump shitload of money to tournaments) and knew how to sell games that appeal to the mass.
The old blizzard sell games because the games were amazing. The new blizzard make above average games(to the casual players however they are amazing) and the market everything so well that it sell.
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Yes, I can make a random statement with no backup whatsoever and assume that it's true.
Blizzard dies BIT pump a lot of money into tournaments, they actually gain a portion of the prizepool.. If you want to debate something, don't make up "facts" on the spot.. The reason why SC 2 is so big is that it is SC 2. it was big before the Beta started. And I really do not understand why it is inferior to BW. Yes, it is a lot less demanding in terms of mechanics, however you can still multitask like a god, by controlling 2 drops at a time, while moving your army and still having decent macro.
Also it is a bit more micro and strategy oriented, I do not think this is a bad thing.
Overall BW would not sell because no one would bother to struggle with the mechanics, only selecting 12 Units at a time? You have to click every single production building individually? No one would bother with a new game that come with those features.
Also, all this time people talk about BW not SC. There are a lot more casting Units yet to come which will possibly make the game a lot more interesting, so chill it is only the first of 3! parts so far.
in fact BW should be release in HD, but without those restriction(but no smartcast plz), but with the same Pathfiding
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
Isn't that the definition of a casual gamer though?
On June 18 2012 16:54 Roth wrote: Blizzard is doin a great job by creating newly designed units. And those of you who complain about the new Units like the colossus, the infestor or something else need not to play Starcraft 2.
Just by creating any new unit, Blizzard does a great job? could you set the bar any lower? Maybe your a guy who plays a game for a few months or maybe a year, but lots of players want games like CS and CS that they can play for decades that mature esports communities can develop around.
You know, I want to watch Flash, Jaedong, Fantasy, etc. play Sc2 for a long time, but if the game isn't good enough they may just retire or go to LoL or something. I barely even play, I'm a SC fan and I now that I will soon only be able to watch SC2, I hardly think you can honestly suggest I be complacent with whatever the crap SC2 turns out to be, regardless of any flaws.
A community like that of BW only develops around an amazing game that thousands of players fall in love with and stay in love with for many years. Those games only happen very rarely. IMO, Counter-Strike and Brood War are the only to reach that pinnacle so far.
Flash said that he really enjoys SC II so I think him going to LoL will not be the biggest concern
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
If BW was timeless it would not die this year. Recreating BW comepletely only with better graphics would mean using the same "bad" mechanics and pathings etc that only existed in the first place because of the engine of that time. Only very few people would want that and you cannot make a game for a few thousand people if you want to make money instead of losing it.
I still don't understand why the Colossus gets so much hate, it can walk over cliffs and be microed in really cool ways due to that. It is VERY fragile if not positioned correctly with anti air and anti ground support. Essentially it is a mobile but less damaging version of the Siegetank (High range, High AOE Damage, dies fast to very few units without support/good positioning) I don't see people complain about the Siegetank at all...
There are only two Units I really hate in SCII right now, Roaches and Infestors.
Roaches are simply broke, being maxed at 11:00 with little to no effort... come on!!
Neural Parasite, though highly underused can make zerg unstoppable with Broodlord Infestor (Vortex on P Units instead of Z)
So, I think there are a ton of people who hate on SCII Colossi, you name it, just for the sake of hating and showing who elite they are..
I don't understand how you can logically come up with this post. I'll entertain it.
You begin by defending the colossus, the least creative unit in SC2 (arguably), which is among the LEAST micro-able units. One of the slowest attack speed and walking speed combination in the game. It NATURALLY positions itself behind your ball because of it's range. You hit everyone over the head with the obvious range comparison to the tank, but then lose me by trying to say it's as unique as the tank; a unit that isn't made to 1a.
You then drive the post off of a cliff and turn it into a balance complaint about roaches. Fucking roaches. In a thread dedicated to the discussion of BW units within SC2. What's worse is that it the reason why roaches are powerful in PvZ has nothing to fucking do with the unit but the metagame that allows the zerg to take such a fast third base and drone up to hit a maxed TIMING.
And then you ice the cake by smugly remarking that discussion criticizing the design of the colossus is actually due to bw elitism bias.
Totally agree with this thread! And funny how the brood war units are needed appearently. Warhound as Goliath, Defiler as Viper, Lurker as Swarm Host, Spider mines as Widow mines. And they even brought back the Firebat, this time as a transformer. So Blizzard, stop being stingy and give me a science vessel....
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example
sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it.
There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it.
Sports will die too at some point, because people change. They change a lot slower but still they change, Boxing will at some point be considered too cruel and die out. I mean we already see that. At some point boxing was a mandatory class, now a big portion of society says it is cruel and disgusting.
Sports evolve, eSport evolves.
However eSport is a VERY YOUNG phenomenon, thus it will evolve very fast for some time now.
I am not sure why we are discussing this though oO
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example
Your pc practically doubles its power every few years. The computer you're using now is a super computer not even a generation before. Games will have to follow technology
sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it.
Sports evolve too. Competitors develop new techniques/tactics/strategies, new equipment become available, and rules change. Sports improve themselves over time too, and just because we developed firearms, that didn't mean that archery became an obsolete sport.
The takeaway point is that we want games we love to evolve and improve. Catering to casuals is not an improvement.
On June 18 2012 18:06 iky43210 wrote: There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it until next installment or something better comes out
Wrong. Casual gamers don't stick to games anywhere near as long as competitive gamers do. The very nature of playing a game competitively (or doing pretty much anything else competitvely) demands far more time invested into the game.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
Isn't that the definition of a casual gamer though?
Yes, but the point is that catering to casual gamers is a bad idea.
On June 18 2012 18:13 Noruxas wrote: Totally agree with this thread! And funny how the brood war units are needed appearently. Warhound as Goliath, Defiler as Viper, Lurker as Swarm Host, Spider mines as Widow mines. And they even brought back the Firebat, this time as a transformer. So Blizzard, stop being stingy and give me a science vessel....
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example
sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it.
There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it.
Sports will die too at some point, because people change. They change a lot slower but still they change, Boxing will at some point be considered too cruel and die out. I mean we already see that. At some point boxing was a mandatory class, now a big portion of society says it is cruel and disgusting.
Sports evolve, eSport evolves.
However eSport is a VERY YOUNG phenomenon, thus it will evolve very fast for some time now.
I am not sure why we are discussing this though oO
yea, that's true. But most sports aren't going to die for many decades to come.
Dunno why we're discussing it, i just replied to the guy that said esport can be sport. technology improves way too rapidly for that to be possible while most sports physical sports (that does not revolve around equipment based) like baseball, soccer, football etc are mostly about physical limitation and changes very slowly
On June 18 2012 18:28 Jumperer wrote: So Realguapo and iky43210. The two people that got destroyed in the previous page, are now debating each other on whether or not ESPORT will live or die. This is like watching two people who can't swim in a swimming contest.
Why are you still posting? It's obvious you two don't know what you are talking about. You have no arguments, you have no credentials, you have nothing, every time someone refuted your argument you just came up with more bullshits. One of you don't even know the different between casual and non-casual gamer. Seriously, do you guys work for blizzard?
why do you seek attention so much? "destroyed" what are you, 13? my biggest mistake was to reply to you in the first place.
Here's a hint, if people aren't replying to you, maybe cause you're not worth replying to.
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress.
On June 18 2012 18:36 Nuclease wrote: Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress.
But you already have copies, but because of this "ambition" to not be associated with previous design team is causing half-assed copies like warhound, widow mine, mothership or copy-paste without thinking carrier (which they even said, they did it without thinking or similar line wtf). Just because Browder team can't really think of any good Reaver replacement we are stuck with Collosus, what if really there was no need to remove Reaver in the first place...
When i look at both Browder/Wilson (d3) teams im just seeing people who want to put their name into legacy, i still cannot see how macro mechanics/ terrible terrible dmg pace of game is superior to standard stages of the game. Or how in D3 customization is fucked because of putting mainstat system causing failure of both itemization and customization.
Its not superior its just new, so in fact i agree with Jumperer most people here are just spouting NEW/DIFFERENT argument which has nothing to do with BETTER.
On June 18 2012 18:36 Nuclease wrote: Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress.
But you already have copies, but because of this "ambition" to not be associated with previous design team is causing half-assed copies like warhound, widow mine, mothership or copy-paste without thinking carrier (which they even said, they did it without thinking or similar line wtf). Just because Browder team can't really think of any good Reaver replacement we are stuck with Collosus, what if really there was no need to remove Reaver in the first place...
When i look at both Browder/Wilson (d3) teams im just seeing people who want to put their name into legacy, i still cannot see how macro mechanics/ terrible terrible dmg pace of game is superior to standard stages of the game. Or how in D3 customization is fucked because of putting mainstat system causing failure of both itemization and customization.
Its not superior its just new, so in fact i agree with Jumperer most people here are just spouting NEW/DIFFERENT argument which has nothing to do with BETTER.
The reaver was never removed because it was never in Starcraft 2, same for spider mines, lurkers, etc. (well, they are in the singleplayer campaign).
The decision wether it's a better or worse game is entirely subjective, YOU think SC2 is worse... ok, great, i've got no problem with that... but why would anyone go into a forum for a game and claim it's objectively worse than another game? There is no objectively better or worse game, it all depends on your perception of it.
I understand some of you guys hate SC2... but then why don't you guys just stay out of the Starcraft 2 forum? Do you see anyone going to the BW forums and claiming BW is bad because it's 2D and has horrible pathfinding?
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move.
Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting.
This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's.
I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races.
Your problem is that you're not paying close enough attention to how much control is actually going on in Starcraft 2 because it's happening so fast you can't follow it.
Starcraft 2 is faster paced than Brood War. Armies are built quicker, and can be destroyed even quicker than that. That said, there's a TON of control required at the pro level, and the truth is that people like you are either just missing it because it's happening too fast for you to follow it or you're purposefully neglecting it for the sake of argument.
I'll give you some examples.
1. Forcing siege tank volleys with expendable units in order to make charging a tank line more effective.
2. Baneling landmines
3. hold position micro of any sort especially involving the early game with workers.
4. Utilizing the factory in TvP to force charge out of Zealots or to block off the ramp in entombed valley.
5. Medivac/Prism load unload micro.
6. Ghost vs High Templar vs Infestor etc. etc.
Some of those examples like the 1 and 4 are subtle, others like 6 are points of interest for every match up and get a lot of coverage but in all cases control is JUST as important in SC2 as it was in Brood War, the difference is that the game itself is so fast paced that oftentimes the best control is hard to see amidst all the graphical violence that goes on during SC2 battles. Posts like yours just tend to focus on ONE thing about SC2 that you don't like and use that for your reasoning for why the game is fundamentally flawed.
All of them except 3 and 6 are highly situational and not used very often, i don't think you understand what i'm talking about. Do you ever control parts/groups/individual units(except not letting your spellcasters die) during a battle? No, again only with terran bio. The best example of Micro in sc2 is in my opinion ZvT: Muta/Ling/Bane vs Terran Marine/Medic/Siege tanks, the zerg spreads out his units the terran does the same and sieges up, zerg a-moves his units and tries to get good baneling hits off, terran spreads
But is controlling a zerg army like that any challenging? Just compare it to what the terran has to do. Even worse with protoss, Zealot/sentry/collosus/ht/archon vs Bio, Protoss a-moves, Ht storm and collosus focus fire, terran has to kite constantly.
Your right that it is as important to control your army as in BW but it's way too easy.
On June 18 2012 18:36 Nuclease wrote: Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress.
But you already have copies, but because of this "ambition" to not be associated with previous design team is causing half-assed copies like warhound, widow mine, mothership or copy-paste without thinking carrier (which they even said, they did it without thinking or similar line wtf). Just because Browder team can't really think of any good Reaver replacement we are stuck with Collosus, what if really there was no need to remove Reaver in the first place...
When i look at both Browder/Wilson (d3) teams im just seeing people who want to put their name into legacy, i still cannot see how macro mechanics/ terrible terrible dmg pace of game is superior to standard stages of the game. Or how in D3 customization is fucked because of putting mainstat system causing failure of both itemization and customization.
Its not superior its just new, so in fact i agree with Jumperer most people here are just spouting NEW/DIFFERENT argument which has nothing to do with BETTER.
The reaver was never removed because it was never in Starcraft 2, same for spider mines, lurkers, etc. (well, they are in the singleplayer campaign).
The decision wether it's a better or worse game is entirely subjective, YOU think SC2 is worse... ok, great, i've got no problem with that... but why would anyone go into a forum for a game and claim it's objectively worse than another game? There is no objectively better or worse game, it all depends on your perception of it.
I understand some of you guys hate SC2... but then why don't you guys just stay out of the Starcraft 2 forum? Do you see anyone going to the BW forums and claiming BW is bad because it's 2D and has horrible pathfinding?
I think you're confusing the argument everyone is making. I also can't stand this perception that the slightest criticism of SC2's design means you HATE the game. Or to compare SC2 to the only game that it can even be compared to, it's predecessor, means you're bashing SC2 out of BW bias.
Like, if SC2 can be made better, then why the fuck should we accept anything less? Because they aren't trying to make SC2 the best possible game it can be -- AS MUCH as they're able to cater to casual players for more money, or as much as Dustin wants to sculpt SC2 into his own vision. To the point he will literally reintroduce every BW unit in one form or another so he can call it his.
SC2 is a great game, but it can be better. edit: Don't one up yourself by replying to this with a strawman about remaking a 3d copy of broodwar. edit2: I must emphasize. I loved BW. I really love SC2. I want SC2 to be amazing. I can't stand the arrogance Blizzard displays in designing it.
edit3: Lurkers/Reavers were in the game at one point. Both removed for different reasons.
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver.
Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy.
I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move.
Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting.
This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's.
I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races.
Your problem is that you're not paying close enough attention to how much control is actually going on in Starcraft 2 because it's happening so fast you can't follow it.
Starcraft 2 is faster paced than Brood War. Armies are built quicker, and can be destroyed even quicker than that. That said, there's a TON of control required at the pro level, and the truth is that people like you are either just missing it because it's happening too fast for you to follow it or you're purposefully neglecting it for the sake of argument.
I'll give you some examples.
1. Forcing siege tank volleys with expendable units in order to make charging a tank line more effective.
2. Baneling landmines
3. hold position micro of any sort especially involving the early game with workers.
4. Utilizing the factory in TvP to force charge out of Zealots or to block off the ramp in entombed valley.
5. Medivac/Prism load unload micro.
6. Ghost vs High Templar vs Infestor etc. etc.
Some of those examples like the 1 and 4 are subtle, others like 6 are points of interest for every match up and get a lot of coverage but in all cases control is JUST as important in SC2 as it was in Brood War, the difference is that the game itself is so fast paced that oftentimes the best control is hard to see amidst all the graphical violence that goes on during SC2 battles. Posts like yours just tend to focus on ONE thing about SC2 that you don't like and use that for your reasoning for why the game is fundamentally flawed.
All of them except 3 and 6 are highly situational and not used very often, i don't think you understand what i'm talking about. Do you ever control parts/groups/individual units(except not letting your spellcasters die) during a battle? No, again only with terran bio. The best example of Micro in sc2 is in my opinion ZvT: Muta/Ling/Bane vs Terran Marine/Medic/Siege tanks, the zerg spreads out his units the terran does the same and sieges up, zerg a-moves his units and tries to get good baneling hits off, terran spreads
But is controlling a zerg army like that any challenging? Just compare it to what the terran has to do. Even worse with protoss, Zealot/sentry/collosus/ht/archon vs Bio, Protoss a-moves, Ht storm and collosus focus fire, terran has to kite constantly.
Your right that it is as important to control your army as in BW but it's way too easy.
` Well, 1 is the core of any recent Zerg assault. I think it was popularized by stephano who always started assaults by having infestors throw infested terrans into the range of siege tanks while simultaneously having his units run in. It makes him win many trades that looked impossible. By now almost every Zerg who uses a similar style (i.e. everyone) does the same.
I agree that there are less "micro tricks" like in BW but then again, battles in SC2 are a lot faster which has it's own set of challenges.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes.
Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene.
It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming.
games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example
sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it.
There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it.
Sports will die too at some point, because people change. They change a lot slower but still they change, Boxing will at some point be considered too cruel and die out.
I don't think you're even 10% right there. If boxing dies out, it's because it's generally seen as a less exciting sport compared to MMA. MMA is at least superficially more "cruel" than boxing - and MMA is gigantic right now and can only get bigger.. Add to that the obvious match fixing in the recent Pacquiao fight, and it makes sense that the sport might lose a lot of popularity, but I very much doubt human nature will ever change so substantially (barring some kind of technological/biomechanical singularity) that two people fighting will not be something people want to see. It's in out DNA.
On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote: Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban.
fer,
I never called SC2 bad. Or worthless. Or a joke. I said it had fundamental flaws as a result of bad game design and stubbornness that could be easily remedied. Most top players who played BW would agree, it's just that they don't want to get on blizzard's bad side or negatively impact their career.
I'm giving the same specific constructive criticism that the community has been giving for two years. It died down for a while, but now with the expansion we have another chance to positively impact the game. Thus, the discussion rises to the forefront again.
I'm not bitter. I loved BW for a few years, but I have a family and a job and important things to do in life. But, I am passionate about Starcraft, I'm a designer, and I along with many others in the community see how it could be improved to be even better than it is currently and be a more long-term esport. I don't want esports to be several-year flings, I want a pseudo-permanent game that will last a decade or more. I don't care about esports if the games are as exciting as BW. Thus, my affection for SC2 is manifested in my passionate critique and specific suggestions as to how it can be more exciting to a broader audience and for us players and more hardcore fans as well.
This is not unprecedented. In a matter of 2-3 months, Valve/Hidden Path have dramatically improved Counter-Strike:Global Offensive from where it was before. How did they do this? They listened to the pros, REALLY understood what made CS special to begin with, and began making necessary tweaks IMMEDIATELY. This isn't that hard. Blizzard could do the same, and hopefully Sigaty babysits Browder more in the expansions to make sure he doesn't screw SC2 up more.
I kept reading most of your replies, but quickly lost faith in you. You throw around your opinion on very subjective matters like it's fact, which just goes to further show that you simply want Starcraft 2 to become Starcraft Brood War. I'm sure this will be a surprise to you (though it really shouldn't) but a _ton_ of people love and enjoy Starcraft 2 just as it is today, regardless of Heart of the Swarm or future expansions. Arguably more people than Starcraft Brood War, and certainly exponentially more successful outside of South Korea.
I'm sorry but you keep pretending you're somehow looking out for the good of Starcraft 2 by trying to turn it into Brood War. Just accept it. More people think Starcraft 2 is a better game overall than Brood War, at least as far as wanting to spend the time to spectate it goes. Remove your blindfold for a second please.
The rest of this thread is pretty much the same story. I really hope none of the Blizzard developers read this thread and think absolutely anything of it, other than just another bunch of people stuck in the past.
Edit: Just for the record, I was not talking about you specifically on my previous posts, but replied to you directly since it seemed appropriate now.
Even though Sc2 is a good game compared to most RTS games, that's only because it's made from BW, sc2 is more fun to play to the less serious gamers but at high levels one would probably want to play BW again(For people that played BW of course. Alot of sc2 fans seem to be in the illusion that they think all the pros are really good and you can't do any better when it comes to micro, but that's all nonsense. Oooh he's attack with roaches, aaaah AMAZING fungal.
Sure MKP bio micro is impressive, but that's about it.
For a sequel of a great game made by a rich developer i really expect more.
Again sc2 is a good game, but not compared to it's prequel.
On June 18 2012 20:23 fer wrote: More people think Starcraft 2 is a better game overall than Brood War, at least as far as wanting to spend the time to spectate it goes.
And how much of those people actually played BW? I get the impression you didnt either. You cant say something is better if you havent tried both things out right? That'd be just plain stupid right?
Just because SC2 is more popular doesn't mean actively avoiding using Brood War for inspiration is a bad idea. I think many would prefer the gameplay of Brood War if it had as much institutional support (and better graphics, UI etc.) as Starcraft II has.
Nevertheless, adding Brood War units to the game is really stupid, because those were created for a different engine, interacting with different units. If you think fixing Protoss is as easy as introducing the reaver then I don't want you to have any input on the design of this game. What Blizzard can do is to ask themselves why the Brood War units were good and then try and find similar solutions that accomplish the same thing. So that's why we get Blinding Cloud and not Dark Swarm. It's not because Blizzard has so much pride they don't want to reuse units, but it's because Dark Swarm would not work for this game anyway. (see how obnoxious PDD is)
On June 18 2012 09:36 SarcasmMonster wrote: To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =)
On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote: Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban.
fer,
I never called SC2 bad. Or worthless. Or a joke. I said it had fundamental flaws as a result of bad game design and stubbornness that could be easily remedied. Most top players who played BW would agree, it's just that they don't want to get on blizzard's bad side or negatively impact their career.
I'm giving the same specific constructive criticism that the community has been giving for two years. It died down for a while, but now with the expansion we have another chance to positively impact the game. Thus, the discussion rises to the forefront again.
I'm not bitter. I loved BW for a few years, but I have a family and a job and important things to do in life. But, I am passionate about Starcraft, I'm a designer, and I along with many others in the community see how it could be improved to be even better than it is currently and be a more long-term esport. I don't want esports to be several-year flings, I want a pseudo-permanent game that will last a decade or more. I don't care about esports if the games are as exciting as BW. Thus, my affection for SC2 is manifested in my passionate critique and specific suggestions as to how it can be more exciting to a broader audience and for us players and more hardcore fans as well.
This is not unprecedented. In a matter of 2-3 months, Valve/Hidden Path have dramatically improved Counter-Strike:Global Offensive from where it was before. How did they do this? They listened to the pros, REALLY understood what made CS special to begin with, and began making necessary tweaks IMMEDIATELY. This isn't that hard. Blizzard could do the same, and hopefully Sigaty babysits Browder more in the expansions to make sure he doesn't screw SC2 up more.
I kept reading most of your replies, but quickly lost faith in you. You throw around your opinion on very subjective matters like it's fact, which just goes to further show that you simply want Starcraft 2 to become Starcraft Brood War. I'm sure this will be a surprise to you (though it really shouldn't) but a _ton_ of people love and enjoy Starcraft 2 just as it is today, regardless of Heart of the Swarm or future expansions. Arguably more people than Starcraft Brood War, and certainly exponentially more successful outside of South Korea.
I'm sorry but you keep pretending you're somehow looking out for the good of Starcraft 2 by trying to turn it into Brood War. Just accept it. More people think Starcraft 2 is a better game overall than Brood War, at least as far as wanting to spend the time to spectate it goes. Remove your blindfold for a second please.
The rest of this thread is pretty much the same story. I really hope none of the Blizzard developers read this thread and think absolutely anything of it, other than just another bunch of people stuck in the past.
Edit: Just for the record, I was not talking about you specifically on my previous posts, but replied to you directly since it seemed appropriate now.
You are accusing OneDer of being a butthurt BW elitist, when he's actually been giving good arguments for how units should be designed. And your arguments are that: 1) SC2 is more popular and enjoyed by more people and 2) You just want SC2 to become just like SC:BW! 3) A good majority of people think SC2 is better than SC:BW as a game.
Firstly, 2 + 3 are not true at all. SC2 is SC2 and BW is BW, and OneDer has stated previously that he thinks some things in SC2 are really good ideas. The vast majority of SC2 players have never played BW competitvely. They may have played the game when it was released back in the day, but I would say a good 90% probably never played on iccup.
and 1) is not a good argument at all. Popularity does not entitle good game design, nor vice versa. Not to mention, they haven't had anything to compare it too. SC2's one and only peer will be BW, whether you like it or not! What other RTS's can you compare it to?
Secondly, what is wrong with comparing it to BW? Professional BW existed for over a decade, just as a testament to how great the game was. Surely they did something right if it existed for that long. Many people are quick to dismiss BW over minor things like 2D graphics, or lack of MBS and unlimited unit selection. If its just the second case that's been bothering you, I implore you to jump into a team melee (That's where 2 or more ppl control the same race. In this case, one person would just macro) with some BW players and try the game for yourselves. You can even PM me if you can't find anyone, I'd be open for something like this if it would help you to see something from our perspective.
On June 18 2012 09:36 SarcasmMonster wrote: To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen.
Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =)
On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote: Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban.
fer,
I never called SC2 bad. Or worthless. Or a joke. I said it had fundamental flaws as a result of bad game design and stubbornness that could be easily remedied. Most top players who played BW would agree, it's just that they don't want to get on blizzard's bad side or negatively impact their career.
I'm giving the same specific constructive criticism that the community has been giving for two years. It died down for a while, but now with the expansion we have another chance to positively impact the game. Thus, the discussion rises to the forefront again.
I'm not bitter. I loved BW for a few years, but I have a family and a job and important things to do in life. But, I am passionate about Starcraft, I'm a designer, and I along with many others in the community see how it could be improved to be even better than it is currently and be a more long-term esport. I don't want esports to be several-year flings, I want a pseudo-permanent game that will last a decade or more. I don't care about esports if the games are as exciting as BW. Thus, my affection for SC2 is manifested in my passionate critique and specific suggestions as to how it can be more exciting to a broader audience and for us players and more hardcore fans as well.
This is not unprecedented. In a matter of 2-3 months, Valve/Hidden Path have dramatically improved Counter-Strike:Global Offensive from where it was before. How did they do this? They listened to the pros, REALLY understood what made CS special to begin with, and began making necessary tweaks IMMEDIATELY. This isn't that hard. Blizzard could do the same, and hopefully Sigaty babysits Browder more in the expansions to make sure he doesn't screw SC2 up more.
I kept reading most of your replies, but quickly lost faith in you. You throw around your opinion on very subjective matters like it's fact, which just goes to further show that you simply want Starcraft 2 to become Starcraft Brood War. I'm sure this will be a surprise to you (though it really shouldn't) but a _ton_ of people love and enjoy Starcraft 2 just as it is today, regardless of Heart of the Swarm or future expansions. Arguably more people than Starcraft Brood War, and certainly exponentially more successful outside of South Korea.
I'm sorry but you keep pretending you're somehow looking out for the good of Starcraft 2 by trying to turn it into Brood War. Just accept it. More people think Starcraft 2 is a better game overall than Brood War, at least as far as wanting to spend the time to spectate it goes. Remove your blindfold for a second please.
The rest of this thread is pretty much the same story. I really hope none of the Blizzard developers read this thread and think absolutely anything of it, other than just another bunch of people stuck in the past.
Edit: Just for the record, I was not talking about you specifically on my previous posts, but replied to you directly since it seemed appropriate now.
You are accusing OneDer of being a butthurt BW elitist, when he's actually been giving good arguments for how units should be designed. And your arguments are that: 1) SC2 is more popular and enjoyed by more people and 2) You just want SC2 to become just like SC:BW! 3) A good majority of people think SC2 is better than SC:BW as a game.
Firstly, 2 + 3 are not true at all. SC2 is SC2 and BW is BW, and OneDer has stated previously that he thinks some things in SC2 are really good ideas.The vast majority of SC2 players have never played SC2competitvely. They may have played the game when it was released back in the day, but I would say a good 90% probably never played on iccup.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Came in to say this pretty much.. it's very difficult to keep everyone happy.
If you compare it to the team behind WoW, they are constantly trying to take the game forward, without reusing old ideas. Perhaps the SC2 team feels the same way.
I don't consider Sc2 to be fundamentally flawed. I think Bw is still a better game, but for me, the difference is getting smaller, because of evolving of people's capabilites. (i hope no one has a problem with this, it makes more sense than it looks after giving it some thought) For example: slow zergling vs. zealot sc2 evolving.
First i saw no micro, only a-move. Then i saw wounded zerglings being pulled back. Then i saw zealot stutterstep. Then i saw zealot stutterstepping so that the zerglings were in a line (taking longer to reach zealot again) Then i saw it optimized to 1 zealot killing up to 7 zerglings before dying, which was totally awesome.
I personally think above evolving is underlighted is the discussion.
Besides, I'm hating the tone of the debate. Calling someone a BW-elitist or sc2 fundamentally flawed without any arguments backing it up is throwing mud in someones face. Do you expect a happy conversation afterwards? Also, be careful with the words 'objective', 'worthy', 'superior', 'old', 'dying' and 'a-moving'; they are hurting e-sports
On June 18 2012 21:57 Yorbon wrote: I don't consider Sc2 to be fundamentally flawed. I think Bw is still a better game, but for me, the difference is getting smaller, because of evolving of people's capabilites. (i hope no one has a problem with this, it makes more sense than it looks after giving it some thought) For example: slow zergling vs. zealot sc2 evolving.
First i saw no micro, only a-move. Then i saw wounded zerglings being pulled back. Then i saw zealot stutterstep. Then i saw zealot stutterstepping so that the zerglings were in a line (taking longer to reach zealot again) Then i saw it optimized to 1 zealot killing up to 7 zerglings before dying, which was totally awesome.
I personally think above evolving is underlighted is the discussion.
Besides, I'm hating the tone of the debate. Calling someone a BW-elitist or sc2 fundamentally flawed without any arguments backing it up is throwing mud in someones face. Do you expect a happy conversation afterwards? Also, be careful with the words 'objective', 'worthy', 'superior', 'old', 'dying' and 'a-moving'; they are hurting e-sports
It's mostly in the hands of the players to make SC2 into what Broodwar already is. Blizzard only has to supply the tools and fundamentals. When the tools are limited or simply bad they limit the potential of the game.
If Blizzard is able to supply proper tools and maybe better the current ones then alright. If the introduce units limit the games diversity (in whatever way) then I would be happier to see old Broodwar units. In the end all that has to be similar between both games is the general feel and the excitement created by amazing games.
edit: Luckily players can create a good game from close to nothing, as seen in your example. I'm generally hopeful that Blizzard will not screw up badly enough that it can not be fixed by the players.
On June 18 2012 21:57 Yorbon wrote: I don't consider Sc2 to be fundamentally flawed. I think Bw is still a better game, but for me, the difference is getting smaller, because of evolving of people's capabilites. (i hope no one has a problem with this, it makes more sense than it looks after giving it some thought) For example: slow zergling vs. zealot sc2 evolving.
First i saw no micro, only a-move. Then i saw wounded zerglings being pulled back. Then i saw zealot stutterstep. Then i saw zealot stutterstepping so that the zerglings were in a line (taking longer to reach zealot again) Then i saw it optimized to 1 zealot killing up to 7 zerglings before dying, which was totally awesome.
I personally think above evolving is underlighted is the discussion.
Besides, I'm hating the tone of the debate. Calling someone a BW-elitist or sc2 fundamentally flawed without any arguments backing it up is throwing mud in someones face. Do you expect a happy conversation afterwards? Also, be careful with the words 'objective', 'worthy', 'superior', 'old', 'dying' and 'a-moving'; they are hurting e-sports
It's mostly in the hands of the players to make SC2 into what Broodwar already is. Blizzard only has to supply the tools and fundamentals. When the tools are limited or simply bad they limit the potential of the game.
If Blizzard is able to supply proper tools and maybe better the current ones then alright. If the introduce units limit the games diversity (in whatever way) then I would be happier to see old Broodwar units. In the end all that has to be similar between both games is the general feel and the excitement created by amazing games.
edit: Luckily players can create a good game from close to nothing, as seen in your example. I'm generally hopeful that Blizzard will not screw up badly enough that it can not be fixed by the players.
I agree with you, at least partially.
However, I'm currently not convinced that sc2 as a whole has too many units that do not fit that profile. I'm not a fan of the colossus, but above all, i feel there are very few units with there max reached. Also, while i felt there were some holes in the gameplay (too few choices in certain match-ups, at certain moments), current HOTS plans fill those holes, mostly. So personally, i'm not too worried.
Because I think the intention with Sc2 was to make a new game, not rehash an old one.
The thing is, in BW, mostly everything that could be perfected, was perfected. To put in BW units in Sc2 is basically making it scbw2.0, and that was never what Blizzard intended.
Here's the thing, Sc2 and BW are two VERY different games with VERY different mechanics. What excites me is that, with Sc2..
I was watching NASL and I previously watched Flash v Jaedong in a WCG final on youtube (moletrap casted).
Now, I think the players were... Polt and a Zerg who's name I can't remember... tomt... I was going to say Genius but he's a Protoss.. I digress.
The difference between the players and their attention spans/skill was massive, Jaedong could catch a drop from anywhere on the map and his timings were spot on, the zerg let a few drops in his main, had his third destroyed and was eventually felled by a marine tank push.
The difference was astounding, and that could only happen because of Sc2, not Scbw2.0, to bring in the same units with those mechanics would be kind of ruining the spirit of the first game.
So, in conclusion, they wanted something 'new' and 'fresh'.. Blizzard is simply the provider, they provided us with new units to play with, mixing it up a bit and letting us, the players, experiment and find something that 'works'.
If you want to play with BW units, play BW. If you want to play with Sc2 units, play Sc2.
On June 18 2012 22:50 Rewdant wrote: Because I think the intention with Sc2 was to make a new game, not rehash an old one.
The thing is, in BW, mostly everything that could be perfected, was perfected. To put in BW units in Sc2 is basically making it scbw2.0, and that was never what Blizzard intended.
Here's the thing, Sc2 and BW are two VERY different games with VERY different mechanics. What excites me is that, with Sc2..
I was watching NASL and I previously watched Flash v Jaedong in a WCG final on youtube (moletrap casted).
Now, I think the players were... Polt and a Zerg who's name I can't remember... tomt... I was going to say Genius but he's a Protoss.. I digress.
The difference between the players and their attention spans/skill was massive, Jaedong could catch a drop from anywhere on the map and his timings were spot on, the zerg let a few drops in his main, had his third destroyed and was eventually felled by a marine tank push.
The difference was astounding, and that could only happen because of Sc2, not Scbw2.0, to bring in the same units with those mechanics would be kind of ruining the spirit of the first game.
So, in conclusion, they wanted something 'new' and 'fresh'.. Blizzard is simply the provider, they provided us with new units to play with, mixing it up a bit and letting us, the players, experiment and find something that 'works'.
If you want to play with BW units, play BW. If you want to play with Sc2 units, play Sc2.
What if it is not working out. Then why is it that ex Brood War players are able to get so good at this game if Sc2 and BW are two VERY different games with VERY different mechanics.
Plus Blizzard didn't really bring anything new to the table. They used the model from the Tom Cruise movie, and then they used the helicopter unit from Avatar. Where is the creativity in that! And oh yeah while at it, they should remove every single BW/SC1 units and replace them with new ones if they want to have create something new.
As for now they are pretty much replacing the role as a AoE control of Lurker, Spider Mines = Widow Mines and other stuff.
Why re-introduce the same fundamental of those old unit? When they wanted something 'new' and 'fresh'.
I wish Blizzard would remove at least one new SC2 unit, this would be a sign of good faith that they are open minded and not too concerned with their egos to admit one of them was a mistake.
That said get the fuck rid of the colossus. In what way has this unit succeeded? Cliffwalking to harass? Oh dear, has anything ever failed so catastrophically?
How about swarms of reapers jumping into your base and taking out your workers or a key tech bulding? When was the last time anyone saw that outside of the bronze league? The new health regen upgrade seems like such a feeble attempt to save this unit. Yeah, someone makes one or two early on now and then, but compare it to any other unit in the game and its role is practically non-existent. Even the hydralisk has a bigger job than this guy.
And yeah, the reaver to me is the most iconic protoss unit from Brood War, more so than zealots, templar, archons or carriers. I miss it dearly =(
If they feel like a roll that was filled by a BW unit is also needed in SC2 they should just put in the original and not create a strange copy of a bw unit and praise it as totally new.
Such a "rip-off" will always be less fun to play because the design is limited by the "don't"s you get from not wanting to copy the orignal unit..
And I totally agree with the poster above me, they should totally get rid of the colossus. In general the new protoss units are not what protoss needs to get more interesting games (yes, I think any matchups involving protoss are very undynamical). I'm no game designer, but the people who are paid for this should definitely be able to come up with something better ^^ Honestly I have no clue what they thought about when creating the tempest. I don't see this unit having a key roll in sc2, it looks like this unit can be used either as all in or to contribute to the death ball. But after all, it seems like thats how blizzard intends protoss to be played.
I mean, the least they could do for the colossus is improve the actual way it does damage so it can stop being anti-micro. Like instead of waiting for the entire attack animation to finish before actually damaging anything make the lasers damage on contact? This would probably be more cpu/network intensive, but it would drastically improve the colossus in terms of entertainment value.
I wish someone would ask in an interview how Blizzard feels about how the colossus turned out so I can decide on whether or not to give up hope of this shit unit ever going away.
Well i agree with all this balance stuff but as a lore-fan as well i want units that get swapped over to get stronger not weaker. You'd think after 10-years all three races would be able to improve their units.
A lot of the units I think have pretty obviously taken a lot of past learned things from BW, there is a defiler-esque unit, there is a lurker-esque unit. It can't just be the same, as the game is different, different engine, different UI, a completely different game.
I do however think they could and should have just done a proper lurker, though I think the swarm host will be more effective against a lot of the force-field heavy styles, it should force a lot of sentry energy usage too early.
I don't think you could really import a lurker and keep it the exact same unit. Since units clump up so much more it would be several times more powerful than its BW counterpart, it would either need to be an expensive T3 unit or weaker in some other regard or both. I think the swarm host could turn out to be an interesting compromise.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
are you just a impatient 16 year old, and yes people will Dota2 is a prime example people will buy the same thing if its been improved some how.
Call of Duty or Call of Derp or my favorite Grenade of Grenade: Grenade Grenade is the simple minded brodouches and 12yr old boys who scream at you cause you don't have turtlebitch headset and can't do a 360 no-scope and Battlefield isn't actually that popular its like 1 BF3 : 5 CoD players which by the way is a made up statistical figure but I know for a fact that there are way more CoD players then people who play BF3 as all my bro says who play it are guys in like their 30s. Also CoD went from a fun FPS on the PC to the plague and a breeding ground for out of control 10yr olds with bad parents ruin everyone's experience on the dark place known as Xbox live
Also Call of Duty is First Person Shooter or commonly as a FPS games like Starcraft , BroodWar, StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 2: tides of Darkness are Real time strategy also known as RTS
And we all waited like what was it 10 or more years for D3 your statement is just full of bad examples that only apply to people on consoles or are like 14 and everything seems to take a eternity to happen but that's life.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Guess they shouldn't have created the perfect game over a decade ago haha
But seriously this is probably it... Although now theyre getting flamed for both with these cheap knock offs... lose-lose-lose gg.
i dont think sc2 need to be like bw at all but there's one thing that i think sc2 did wrong and thats spells. the number of spells available are about the same between sc2 and bw, core difference is that most of bw spells come mid to late game, some spells being boarderline OP like maelstrom or spawn broods or lock down or emp, however, they're costly spells and reserved for late game designed to end the game, like a sudden death mode.
sc2 spells come early, perhaps for "terrible terrible damage" and for visual effects, but i think it hurts the game more than it helps. many spells carried over and have been nerfed to hell because its introduced so early. perhaps starcraft 2 needs to follow bw model when it comes to spells. early game should be battle of unit vs unit micro like vulture/goon, marine/bane and spells coming in later. just saying, the feel of wrong forcefield or just being ramp blocked by forcefield, getting all muta tangled up in a series of fungal is not fun and its something players constantly worry about which i dont think should be necessary.
To be honest, the macro mechanics are another main contributing factor to game spectating excitement not reaching full potential. They make comebacks much more difficult and are among the things that promote so many all-ins and base trades. This has become apparent over the last two years. They are fun and a very cool idea, but they detract from the back and forth that makes games so exciting.
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.
Just read through that pathing thread, very interesting and I'm definitely for it, though I would doubt it being implemented. Makes me laugh a little because back in beta everyone complained about aoe being too weak to matter and were all worried about battles lasting too long and being like WC3, lol. Anyways, I digress...
Here's the thing. When we look at this historically, the game right now isn't going to mean a damn thing. WoL right now has issues and there are very few people who would disagree with that, even at Blizzard I think, if you put them on a lie detector anyway. But no matter what the game looks like now, its gonna get shaking up completely, and essentially reset, once HotS is released, and the same thing will happen over again when LotV is released after that. One can only hope that lessons get learned along the way, but really, the game right now will ultimately not matter at all.
That's not to say there aren't reasons to be concerned. Like everyone else, I hate the colossus, but its not hopeless even if it stays in the game. Right now, its essential to balance that it stay in. If you just take it out, or nerf it to hell in the game as it is, Toss will just get stomped into the dirt. But if you're sitting in a Blizzard office planning for the future you can actually balance toss around a reduced colossus role without breaking the game. Give it a minimum range a la siege tanks, push it further down the tech tree, make it pricier and beefier. In short, turn it from a unit you get a lot of (which to me is why its such a boring unit) into something situational. Make it a game finisher when you already have a lead. That's just an example, but the point is, there are things that you can't do now that you could do later.
Now, whether or not that happens is another story. But I really can't believe that the folks at Blizz are complete morons. I'm sure they have long term plans that no one here knows anything about, and only time will tell if those plans are any good.
Glad to see you read it. Rather than bumping it, I'm considering a new OP that links it and highlights the basic gist of it, along with other fundamental points. Just those images alone already feel more epic and 'real,' so to speak.
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.
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.
On June 19 2012 03:25 Greggle wrote: I don't think you could really import a lurker and keep it the exact same unit. Since units clump up so much more it would be several times more powerful than its BW counterpart, it would either need to be an expensive T3 unit or weaker in some other regard or both. I think the swarm host could turn out to be an interesting compromise.
Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end.
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.
Not really. A few units might need buffs/nerfs based on the new dynamic of weaker ranged units/aoe units, but thats what a beta is for right? We could see tanks being powerful again. The colossus wouldn't be the pivotal go to splash unit. Forcefield effectiveness is mitigated. Maps can be bigger. Air/melee units wouldn't get obliterated by balls of marines. An entire new playground to innovate in.
Besides, it's not like they said everything was gonna change in HotS...or did they
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
are you just a impatient 16 year old, and yes people will Dota2 is a prime example people will buy the same thing if its been improved some how.
Call of Duty or Call of Derp or my favorite Grenade of Grenade: Grenade Grenade is the simple minded brodouches and 12yr old boys who scream at you cause you don't have turtlebitch headset and can't do a 360 no-scope and Battlefield isn't actually that popular its like 1 BF3 : 5 CoD players which by the way is a made up statistical figure but I know for a fact that there are way more CoD players then people who play BF3 as all my bro says who play it are guys in like their 30s. Also CoD went from a fun FPS on the PC to the plague and a breeding ground for out of control 10yr olds with bad parents ruin everyone's experience on the dark place known as Xbox live
Also Call of Duty is First Person Shooter or commonly as a FPS games like Starcraft , BroodWar, StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 2: tides of Darkness are Real time strategy also known as RTS
And we all waited like what was it 10 or more years for D3 your statement is just full of bad examples that only apply to people on consoles or are like 14 and everything seems to take a eternity to happen but that's life.
People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks.
Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done.
Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end.
It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
are you just a impatient 16 year old, and yes people will Dota2 is a prime example people will buy the same thing if its been improved some how.
Call of Duty or Call of Derp or my favorite Grenade of Grenade: Grenade Grenade is the simple minded brodouches and 12yr old boys who scream at you cause you don't have turtlebitch headset and can't do a 360 no-scope and Battlefield isn't actually that popular its like 1 BF3 : 5 CoD players which by the way is a made up statistical figure but I know for a fact that there are way more CoD players then people who play BF3 as all my bro says who play it are guys in like their 30s. Also CoD went from a fun FPS on the PC to the plague and a breeding ground for out of control 10yr olds with bad parents ruin everyone's experience on the dark place known as Xbox live
Also Call of Duty is First Person Shooter or commonly as a FPS games like Starcraft , BroodWar, StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 2: tides of Darkness are Real time strategy also known as RTS
And we all waited like what was it 10 or more years for D3 your statement is just full of bad examples that only apply to people on consoles or are like 14 and everything seems to take a eternity to happen but that's life.
People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks.
Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done.
Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end.
It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same.
If you watched the above video, Lurker Spine attacks actually slower than BW counterpart. So that left more time for Marines to be micro'd. So not exactly identical.
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.
As others have already pointed out, you arbitrarily assumed an astronomical difficulty.
Additionally, Blizzard will be tweaking Sc2 for years to come, so there's no time like the present to improve this fundamental element to legibility and excitement.
Browder's motto should be: 'Whatever it takes.' Blizzard has already blown a billion dollars to get this far. To achieve only 'good' would be a gross disappointment.
I need to make a new thread about this stuff. A comprehensive archives that reexamines SC2, it's successes so far and how to unlock its full potential. Anyone wanting to help PM me please.
oh this dynamic movement thing again, well some really want to make the game easy as pie i assume. Unstacking units and keeping them unstacked is actually harder to do, then stacking them when they are unstacked by default, so i really like how Blizzard did it. And you have magic box you can utilize as well. Bw was pretty simple in that regard compared to sc2. The difference was if you utilized the movement tricks in bw you destroyed your opponent. In sc2 its an edge and so far only a few that dominate the scene utilize a few movement tricks from all that are available, the rest simply doesn't bother with it and normally loses due to that.
On June 19 2012 05:56 FeyFey wrote: oh this dynamic movement thing again, well some really want to make the game easy as pie i assume. Unstacking units and keeping them unstacked is actually harder to do, then stacking them when they are unstacked by default, so i really like how Blizzard did it. And you have magic box you can utilize as well. Bw was pretty simple in that regard compared to sc2. The difference was if you utilized the movement tricks in bw you destroyed your opponent. In sc2 its an edge and so far only a few that dominate the scene utilize a few movement tricks from all that are available, the rest simply doesn't bother with it and normally loses due to that.
The goal is to improve psychological army size, and as a result, legibility and excitement. That will not happen with the current iteration. SC2 has plenty of micro/macro for players to do without ruining this aesthetic. The change is necessary and will in no way lower the skill ceiling in any way that effects the world's best players.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Not just unit speed, but also abilities that punish any degree of poking, like concussive, forcefield, etc. contribute to this. And yes, the engine could change if absolutely necessary, it's just a matter of willpower.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
I'm not sure what the latency is, but there is something that makes units feel very sluggish even when I first order my workers to mine. Right there I feel the difference. If there is an issue of latency, that will also hamper micro tricks. Something like muta micro really only worked on LAN and good servers like iCCup because Battlenet always had too much latency.
I've been trying to figure out words to describe the difference because most people will say SC2 units move faster. And I think that's true, even the BW pro's talk about that. But I think the best analogy is that SC2 has faster top speed, but BW has faster acceleration/ more maneuverability. Or rather there are tricks to get it to have faster acceleration from 0 to 80km/hr. Whereas SC2 runs around at 120km/hr, but has a harder time getting up to speed and turning around.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best I can think of right now. In any event, it's that acceleration and maneuverability that's so key to being able to micro even the most boring unit and make it exciting.
On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote: I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
are you just a impatient 16 year old, and yes people will Dota2 is a prime example people will buy the same thing if its been improved some how.
Call of Duty or Call of Derp or my favorite Grenade of Grenade: Grenade Grenade is the simple minded brodouches and 12yr old boys who scream at you cause you don't have turtlebitch headset and can't do a 360 no-scope and Battlefield isn't actually that popular its like 1 BF3 : 5 CoD players which by the way is a made up statistical figure but I know for a fact that there are way more CoD players then people who play BF3 as all my bro says who play it are guys in like their 30s. Also CoD went from a fun FPS on the PC to the plague and a breeding ground for out of control 10yr olds with bad parents ruin everyone's experience on the dark place known as Xbox live
Also Call of Duty is First Person Shooter or commonly as a FPS games like Starcraft , BroodWar, StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 2: tides of Darkness are Real time strategy also known as RTS
And we all waited like what was it 10 or more years for D3 your statement is just full of bad examples that only apply to people on consoles or are like 14 and everything seems to take a eternity to happen but that's life.
People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks.
Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done.
Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end.
It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same.
If you watched the above video, Lurker Spine attacks actually slower than BW counterpart. So that left more time for Marines to be micro'd. So not exactly identical.
This is true, there's no way of telling whether or not this would be the right change to make though. =/
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D
that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed?
Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there.
games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly.
There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular
Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes
are you just a impatient 16 year old, and yes people will Dota2 is a prime example people will buy the same thing if its been improved some how.
Call of Duty or Call of Derp or my favorite Grenade of Grenade: Grenade Grenade is the simple minded brodouches and 12yr old boys who scream at you cause you don't have turtlebitch headset and can't do a 360 no-scope and Battlefield isn't actually that popular its like 1 BF3 : 5 CoD players which by the way is a made up statistical figure but I know for a fact that there are way more CoD players then people who play BF3 as all my bro says who play it are guys in like their 30s. Also CoD went from a fun FPS on the PC to the plague and a breeding ground for out of control 10yr olds with bad parents ruin everyone's experience on the dark place known as Xbox live
Also Call of Duty is First Person Shooter or commonly as a FPS games like Starcraft , BroodWar, StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 2: tides of Darkness are Real time strategy also known as RTS
And we all waited like what was it 10 or more years for D3 your statement is just full of bad examples that only apply to people on consoles or are like 14 and everything seems to take a eternity to happen but that's life.
People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks.
Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done.
Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end.
It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same.
I wasn't shitting on Dota2 for being the same game. T_T I think its great that its the same game its a good and competitive game even though I wasn't part of it in it's fledgling years or at its peak the point I was making is that some one else was saying that people don't want to see the same game that just looks better with some minor gameplay changes>:/
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.
Call my idea stupid, but I think that as interceptors die, they crash into the ground doing splash damage. Force players to counter carriers "properly." IE Neural, corruptor, Vikings (clustered from range), and voidray supplemented by micro-intensively controlled groups of cluster units like Hydra/marine/stalker.
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.
Call my idea stupid, but I think that as interceptors die, they crash into the ground doing splash damage. Force players to counter carriers "properly." IE Neural, corruptor, Vikings (clustered from range), and voidray supplemented by micro-intensively controlled groups of cluster units like Hydra/marine/stalker.
Thoughts?
I'll give a legit reason why I don't like your idea: it's random and uncontrollable for the Protoss player. You can't control the interceptors themselves, and thus you can't control the "crashing down onto marine's heads" bit. Also, I don't think there should ever be a "proper counter" in Starcraft. There should be multiple ways to deal with a problem, instead of just resorting to a "He has X, so I should get Y" mentality. I think the reason why many people resort to this mentality is because there are too many hard counters built into the game, and the game tricks you into thinking that bonus damage = you must use unit vs this armor type.
But yeah, I think like Oneder stated, fixing carrier micro would be fine. I believe atm, interceptors don't reheal when they get back into the carrier? Carriers weren't ever meant to be used against marines. Even in BW, marines would kill the interceptors so quickly that they'd be rendered useless. (Watch Hiya vs Violet on Bloody Ridge) Carriers are meant to abuse high ground/cliffs/ridges against slower moving forces with less anti air.
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmwifT_L_V8 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?)
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
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.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
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 completely agree with that. It's like focusing on reflexes and habits (having insane macro, insane mechanics) that demands only practice, rather than focusing on strategies, which demands reflexion, imagination, creativity, intellect...
That would lead to a dumb guy capable of beating a brilliant genius, if he only surpasses him by a tiny bit in terms of mechanics... (well, tend to, not reach this limit)
On June 20 2012 00:20 aintz wrote: why would we want bw units? blizzard would be glad if everyone just wanted bw units ported but we are not paying money for old ideas.
If we thought that Browder was capable of reliably introducing good new units, we'd be less inclined to ask for more old ones. Doesn't matter how old the ideas are if they're good. And I guarantee you noone who still remembers what the Lurker is would be disappointed if it returned. It was possibly the most beloved unit in BW.
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.
You must hate TvP in BW then.
My opponent is protoss...
I guess that removes barracks and starport tech unless I try a gimmicky all in/timing push that I hope to god works.
"Oh noes a collosus, I have to add vikings!" Please! "Oh noes protoss, I *have* to go pure mech!"
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.
You must hate TvP in BW then.
My opponent is protoss...
I guess that removes barracks and starport tech unless I try a gimmicky all in/timing push that I hope to god works.
"Oh noes a collosus, I have to add vikings!" Please! "Oh noes protoss, I *have* to go pure mech!"
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
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.
This. Fighting interface instead of opponent doesn`t make for a good 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.
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.
You must hate TvP in BW then.
My opponent is protoss...
I guess that removes barracks and starport tech unless I try a gimmicky all in/timing push that I hope to god works.
"Oh noes a collosus, I have to add vikings!" Please! "Oh noes protoss, I *have* to go pure mech!"
1) That's pretty much true and most people agree that TvP in BW was the least exciting matchup of the 3 non-mirrors by a good margin. There were pretty consistent complaints that the matchup was *somewhat* flawed and often resulted in the "one big battle and done" thing. Not saying its a bad matchup, but it was significantly less dynamic and entertaining that TvZ or PvZ by a good margin and I don't think you'd find many who disagree.
2) The colossus is a single example of something that is too prevalent in the game as it stands. When was the last PvZ you saw where P didn't use tons of force fields? What's a good counter to high templar aside from ghosts for T? How about low-econ zerg a la Yellow in BW? To be clear, the game isn't perfect and probably never will be. Even BW had limiting factors on player choice, style, and options as outlined above. But in my opinion at least, there are often too few and a lot of games tend to feel kinda "samey".
3) You're comparing a single unit (colossus) to an entire matchup in BW. There's lots of units and strategies that are only really valid in one or two of the three possible matchups for each race and that's fine. Yes, going mech in TvP was pretty much a requirement, but there were quite a few different flavors of mech and plenty of subtle timing differences and playstyle quirks from one player to another, and that's the sort of thing the game should encourage. Would you agree that Flash and Fantasy played TvP differently from one another? So what would you say is the difference between the way MVP and MarineKing respond to Colossi?
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.
Why do starcraft pros spend so much time, day in, day out practising, huh? What's it all for?
Is it by practising the basics over and over, that something that used take so much effort to do, suddenly became almost effortless to do.
“To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.” A quote from Malcolm Gladwell on how long it takes for a person to be a phenom in their field.
What would happen then, if a player put in the same amount of effort previously and added that with their newer, more finely tuned skills.
The answer to me is, they'd have free time to do whatever they wanted. If everything they do inside the game is intuitive to them, it gives the player all the time they need to strategize. They get so good at the game, that they can focus on the strategy aspect more.
What if two players of equal skill practise everyday, with only one of them doing a limited amount of things, he'll be inferior to the other player who does all of that and more, surely?
It's not about fighting any interface or nonsense like that. It's about watching pros like DRG at a recent Mlg, 1a all of his infestors into a toss deathball. Why did he do that? Because he had every unit on one hotkey.
Where is the strategy in that? You're basically saying "hey flash, you can do more right? So, we'll stop you from showing how good you can be and we'll have the game do more things for you, is that ok?"
Getting rid of unlimited selection, mbs etc etc. would force current players to get better, to approach every battle with more caution than just 1aing all of your units at the opponent.
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.
Why do starcraft pros spend so much time, day in, day out practising, huh? What's it all for?
Is it by practising the basics over and over, that something that used take so much effort to do, suddenly became almost effortless to do.
“To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.” A quote from Malcolm Gladwell on how long it takes for a person to be a phenom in their field.
What would happen then, if a player put in the same amount of effort previously and added that with their newer, more finely tuned skills.
The answer to me is, they'd have free time to do whatever they wanted. If everything they do inside the game is intuitive to them, it gives the player all the time they need to strategize. They get so good at the game, that they can focus on the strategy aspect more.
What if two players of equal skill practise everyday, with only one of them doing a limited amount of things, he'll be inferior to the other player who does all of that and more, surely?
It's not about fighting any interface or nonsense like that. It's about watching pros like DRG at a recent Mlg, 1a all of his infestors into a toss deathball. Why did he do that? Because he had every unit on one hotkey.
Where is the strategy in that? You're basically saying "hey flash, you can do more right? So, we'll stop you from showing how good you can be and we'll have the game do more things for you, is that ok?"
Getting rid of unlimited selection, mbs etc etc. would force current players to get better, to approach every battle with more caution than just 1aing all of your units at the opponent.
Uhm, because the game allows people to do stupid stuff the game makes people stupid? Watch players like Stephano who have incredible unit control, i've seen him on the fly selecting one infestor to fungal, the second to throw down 2 infested terrans to kill the drop... or control 3 groups of roaches seperately to win against almost impossible odds... all while having most of his units on one hotkey.
Artificial limitations don't make a game better... why don't we play warcraft 1 then? Single unit control should make pros even better, right? Or at least warcraft 2 where you could only select 4 units.
Yes, current pros still often do stupid stuff like 1a-ing with infestors, that doesn't mean we should limit the unit selection just so they can 1a2a3a with infestors...
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.
Why do starcraft pros spend so much time, day in, day out practising, huh? What's it all for?
Is it by practising the basics over and over, that something that used take so much effort to do, suddenly became almost effortless to do.
“To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.” A quote from Malcolm Gladwell on how long it takes for a person to be a phenom in their field.
What would happen then, if a player put in the same amount of effort previously and added that with their newer, more finely tuned skills.
The answer to me is, they'd have free time to do whatever they wanted. If everything they do inside the game is intuitive to them, it gives the player all the time they need to strategize. They get so good at the game, that they can focus on the strategy aspect more.
What if two players of equal skill practise everyday, with only one of them doing a limited amount of things, he'll be inferior to the other player who does all of that and more, surely?
It's not about fighting any interface or nonsense like that. It's about watching pros like DRG at a recent Mlg, 1a all of his infestors into a toss deathball. Why did he do that? Because he had every unit on one hotkey.
Where is the strategy in that? You're basically saying "hey flash, you can do more right? So, we'll stop you from showing how good you can be and we'll have the game do more things for you, is that ok?"
Getting rid of unlimited selection, mbs etc etc. would force current players to get better, to approach every battle with more caution than just 1aing all of your units at the opponent.
Surely you must agree that using the BW interface as the gold standard is arbitrary. By your own argument, would you not agree that going back to a warcraft one interface with no control groups and limited hotkeys would even further allow players to showcase their skill and time spent practicing?
I'm not saying you're completely wrong, just that its not a black or white issue. I'm personally in favor of unlimited unit selection but against mbs, for example. Your own example shows why using a single hotkey for your army is idiotic and it takes practice to train yourself out of doing so. In addition, putting arbitrary restriction on unit selection would punish zerg more than it would protoss.
The ultimate point is that the game must provide sufficient "things" for players to have to keep track of in order for the skill ceiling to be high enough to have a long term ever-evolving game. It doesn't *really* matter what those things are provided there are a lot of them. I actually think something mechanically demanding that could be easily made use of is more "always good" abilities with significant cooldowns (like > 10 seconds). As an example, eliminate energy requirements for mules and put them on a cooldown. Thus, if you don't hit your mules spot-on, you're going to be losing mule mining time. Throw in some other abilities that work on a similar concept. Give Ravens a "flare" or something like that which gives vision to an area for 15 seconds or something like that and have the ability on 30 second cool down. I mechanically skilled player would be encouraged to be constantly moving his ravens around tossing out flares every 30 seconds while someone less skilled would not have the multi-tasking skills to be able to do so.
To be clear, since I see the critique already, I am NOT in favor of combat abilities on cooldowns. You then wind up with battles and games being decided based on whether or not one side or the other has abilities available or not which is a little too random for my tastes.
Surely you must agree that using the BW interface as the gold standard is arbitrary. By your own argument, would you not agree that going back to a warcraft one interface with no control groups and limited hotkeys would even further allow players to showcase their skill and time spent practicing?
For me, it's about rewarding the player who can and not the player who can't. Having a player in BW controlling an army on multiple hotkeys, is in my view more skillful than the SCtoo 1a/deathball counterpart. I honestly see unlimited selection as a step backwards, for it's far too forgiving to lesser skilled players who would get picked apart if they had to control multiple armies across the map.
Also being in favor of mbs, is kind of odd. I mean clicking on each barrack individually, seems like it would take too much time and effort, you know?
Surely having this game as simple and easy as possible is the way to go. Maybe I've just been viewing this the wrong way the whole time.
Surely you must agree that using the BW interface as the gold standard is arbitrary. By your own argument, would you not agree that going back to a warcraft one interface with no control groups and limited hotkeys would even further allow players to showcase their skill and time spent practicing?
For me, it's about rewarding the player who can and not the player who can't. Having a player in BW controlling an army on multiple hotkeys, is in my view more skillful than the SCtoo 1a/deathball counterpart. I honestly see unlimited selection as a step backwards, for it's far too forgiving to lesser skilled players who would get picked apart if they had to control multiple armies across the map.
Also being in favor of mbs, is kind of odd. I mean clicking on each barrack individually, seems like it would take too much time and effort, you know?
Surely having this game as simple and easy as possible is the way to go. Maybe I've just been viewing this the wrong way the whole time.
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling.
SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet.
The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote: On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling.
SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet.
The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
Relatively speaking, isn't raising the skill floor the same as lowering the skill ceiling?
On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote: On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling.
SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet.
The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
It's probably more that the multitasking of Sc2 pro has not quite reached the multitasking ability of BW players. The game does make some things easier, but the potential of the game has not been reached yet. The options for multitasking hasn't changed, but it made it possible for people to just use one large control group. As players get better, we'll see more and more multitasking, already you're seeing multiple attacks and different locations at the same time, that'll probably continue to develop as players increase their skill level.
On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote: On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling.
SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet.
The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
Relatively speaking, isn't raising the skill floor the same as lowering the skill ceiling?
No. The first is requiring more skill to do the most basic level of things. The second is making it possible to only do so much with great skill.
On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote: On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling.
SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet.
The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
Relatively speaking, isn't raising the skill floor the same as lowering the skill ceiling?
No.
Lowering the skill ceiling makes it harder to differentiate yourself at the top levels of play. Raising the skill floor simply makes it easier for bad players to play a reasonable game. The skill gap between the floor and the ceiling is so wide that the raising of the floor is negligible.
I'm hoping they will offer a Broodwar Forever at some point after legacy of the Void that will be a perfect remake of broodwar with improved graphics. I know it's a long shot, but that's my wish. The game was so flawless.
I hate it when people say redicolous arguments like: Sc2 is young, was bw good the first years?
First of all most of the people who say that have very limited knowledge of BW, secondly they are very different games made in different time periods.
It's true that SC1 had some issues when it came out but all the broken strats and glitches(that broke the game) were gone with the expansion that was released the same year (8 months after SC1). From there on people(alot in korea) started to figure out how to actually play the game with build orders, unit compositions and micro/macro tricks. It just doesn't have the same issues like SC2 have that would make it a much worse game to play and spectate.
In competitive BW, skill raised by better builds, new strats on maps, players played more so better multitasking/macro/micro, and people also figured out these little tricks that make the game so much more interesting(mutalisk stacking, lurker hold, unit through minerals).
In SC2 we have see alot of improvement, but due to the game design, it is just not gonna improve the same way BW did, so what pro's have learned to always split their army in 1 more year? That's not gonna make the upcoming battle any more interesting.
I see that there are a lot of misconception going on here.
Let me pick a simple example: limited unit selection. In BW it is set to 12 units per group, in SC2 it is set to 255 I believe.
Which one is better? None of them.
Why? In BW you are not willing to have +12 units in a control group anyway, because it is much easier to move your army around with multiple control groups and makes microing easier. BW rewards greatly players who micro. One interesting side effect of this restriction is that the game forces the players to spread out their army and to create flanking positioning. It is very pleasing to watch a 200/200 battle roll out in BW because it is very spread out in the map and the engagement takes time enough to viewers appreciate the progamers microing and little tricks.
In SC2 you have hypotetically infinite unit selection, which means you could separate your army into multiple groups just like in BW. However in SC2 things are different, especially for the protoss race: if you spread your army into multiple groups you may get punished for those seconds you take issuing the attack command for each one of them, because everything happens way too fast. Another reason as to why you are punished if you have multiple groups is that the unit pathing is extraordinary, so unlike BW, controlling a huge army with one or two control groups is easier.
One interesting exception in SC2, and that remind BW games, is the marine spreading vs banelings. This is what SC2 urgently needs more. Instead of having spells that unables your opponent's micro (FF, FG), SC2 units/spells should incentive micro from both parties during the engagement (and no, FF/FG casting is not the kind of micro I'm talking about).
So, when someone says about reintroducing BW units in SC2, what they actually want are units (be it new or old) that provides one of the foundations of the success that BW is as an RTS.
Unfortunately if you have never truly experienced BW, you may be not ablet to understand what I'm trying to say and will think I'm just another "BW elitist" trying to convert SC2 into Neo BW. Believe me, I truly wish that SC2 can become as good as BW, since the last one is gone.
On June 20 2012 06:10 Guamshin wrote: I hate it when people say redicolous arguments like: Sc2 is young, was bw good the first years?
First of all most of the people who say that have very limited knowledge of BW, secondly they are very different games made in different time periods.
It's true that SC1 had some issues when it came out but all the broken strats and glitches(that broke the game) were gone with the expansion that was released the same year (8 months after SC1). From there on people(alot in korea) started to figure out how to actually play the game with build orders, unit compositions and micro/macro tricks. It just doesn't have the same issues like SC2 have that would make it a much worse game to play and spectate.
In competitive BW, skill raised by better builds, new strats on maps, players played more so better multitasking/macro/micro, and people also figured out these little tricks that make the game so much more interesting(mutalisk stacking, lurker hold, unit through minerals).
In SC2 we have see alot of improvement, but due to the game design, it is just not gonna improve the same way BW did, so what pro's have learned to always split their army in 1 more year? That's not gonna make the upcoming battle any more interesting.
In SC2, skill is raising with better builds, new strategies on maps, players getting better at multitasking, macro, and micro as they play more, and cute ways to use units.
A lot of "pro" SC2 players are still pretty awful at the game, as evidenced by how easily they get their faces smashed by the actual top players.
I said it earlier in the thread and I'll say it again: as SC2 gets older and top players get better, many of the criticisms of SC2 in relation to SC:BW are getting outdated. The recent MLGs especially have demonstrated that many of the posters in this thread were simply wrong about the nature of SC2. Yourself included.
On June 20 2012 06:12 fabiano wrote: So, when someone says about reintroducing BW units in SC2, what they actually want are units (be it new or old) that provides one of the foundations of the success that BW is as an RTS.
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!
This thread is basically the exact opposite of what you're saying. It's not about people wanting units like SC1 had. It's all about how "Blizzard keeps making units that are kinda like SC1 units, so they should just bring those back." This is saying that old units are better because they're old, not because of some specific aspect of them. The Lurker is should be used instead of the Swarm Host because its "the sleek, horrifying Lurker people love?"
So you can't claim that this this thread isn't about people wanting the game to use more SC1 units. Because that's exactly what this thread is about. That's what the OP says he wants.
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
Respond or not as you see fit.
The point I've been trying to make from the start is that you seem to want to make this into a right and wrong question. The reality is there are probably hundreds of different solutions to the very real issues the SC2 has. ONE possible solution is the make the game just like BW... that isn't the only option. SC2 is a different game and only time will tell if it is as good as BW. Right now it isn't and I think you and I are on the same page as far as the question goes.
But you can't just blindly say that "If they don't make the interface just like Brood War's, then it will never be as good". There is more than one way to have a high skill ceiling.
And man, I have to say, you're definitely the first one on here ever to accuse me of being an SC2 apologist. The game is flawed, I've said that right along. BW is way better than SC2 as it currently is, I just think it is entirely possible SC2 could be as good even without reverting the interface. I think the much bigger problem is the units themselves and the severe lack of anything microable.
On June 20 2012 06:12 fabiano wrote: I see that there are a lot of misconception going on here.
Let me pick a simple example: limited unit selection. In BW it is set to 12 units per group, in SC2 it is set to 255 I believe.
Which one is better? None of them.
Why? In BW you are not willing to have +12 units in a control group anyway, because it is much easier to move your army around with multiple control groups and makes microing easier. BW rewards greatly players who micro. One interesting side effect of this restriction is that the game forces the players to spread out their army and to create flanking positioning. It is very pleasing to watch a 200/200 battle roll out in BW because it is very spread out in the map and the engagement takes time enough to viewers appreciate the progamers microing and little tricks.
In SC2 you have hypotetically infinite unit selection, which means you could separate your army into multiple groups just like in BW. However in SC2 things are different, especially for the protoss race: if you spread your army into multiple groups you may get punished for those seconds you take issuing the attack command for each one of them, because everything happens way too fast. Another reason as to why you are punished if you have multiple groups is that the unit pathing is extraordinary, so unlike BW, controlling a huge army with one or two control groups is easier.
One interesting exception in SC2, and that remind BW games, is the marine spreading vs banelings. This is what SC2 urgently needs more. Instead of having spells that unables your opponent's micro (FF, FG), SC2 units/spells should incentive micro from both parties during the engagement (and no, FF/FG casting is not the kind of micro I'm talking about).
So, when someone says about reintroducing BW units in SC2, what they actually want are units (be it new or old) that provides one of the foundations of the success that BW is as an RTS.
Unfortunately if you have never truly experienced BW, you may be not ablet to understand what I'm trying to say and will think I'm just another "BW elitist" trying to convert SC2 into Neo BW. Believe me, I truly wish that SC2 can become as good as BW, since the last one is gone.
This is BS. In SC2, you're rewarded for using multiple control groups. Whether it is to set up a flanking position, a better concave, or controlling 2 drops while also attacking the main base, or making a real 2 pronged attack, with both groups being micro'ed, poking, and prodding every weakness. The best players take advantage of this. Terran elevator play is a prime example, where there's a drop in your main, and an attack at your natural.
Pro players have also even started to micro in those massive deathball battles because they have figured out that sometimes it's worth it. Whether it's moving 1-2 marauders forward so that those colossus shots don't splash on 5 other units (even though that only lasts a couple seconds), or the splits from banelings and all, we are starting to see very micro-intensive maneuvers.
Another thing, it seriously boggles the mind that people want to break the UI. Perfect movement is a GOOD thing. If I click a unit, and right click on a different spot, that action SHOULD be executed. The fact that some BW players became gods at moving dragoons from point A to point B (ooo, how exciting) should not be reasoning to break SC2's fantastic UI.
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?)
Well if not Dreamhack, then what? But how about MLG- they get a lot of the big Koreans? And I took a bunch of screenshots from there too. Now mind you, I'm not going out of my way to get these pictures to prove a point. I'm just watching games and then I get annoyed by what I'm seeing and fire up fraps.
Maybe GSL? I'll admit I can't watch that anymore as I can no longer go to work on 2 hours of sleep. But even when they spread out (from what I've seen), it's just smaller blobs.
But BW Protoss is not blobby at all. The joke is 1a2a3a, but it's all about spreading out your army, flanking the terran and coming in at all sides to minimize splash damage. Or being super mobile by recalling your army around the map with multiple arbiters or hit and running with carriers. Basically anti-deathball. PvZ you could maybe make the argument for blobby (late game), but then it's the zerg armies that fills the screen. Even PvP, you need that nice spread out concave for effective dragoon fire as well as minimizing storm damage.
Another thing, it seriously boggles the mind that people want to break the UI. Perfect movement is a GOOD thing. If I click a unit, and right click on a different spot, that action SHOULD be executed. The fact that some BW players became gods at moving dragoons from point A to point B (ooo, how exciting) should not be reasoning to break SC2's fantastic UI.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what is being argued/ highly ignorant. No-one is arguing to break the AI. If anything, we're arguing to allow more options as the current unit movement creates limitations that didn't exist before.
Clumping ≠ perfect movement. You can have click unit and right click different terrain and the action is execute and not have have units clump. Or else have better options to be able to clump or not. What makes dragoon micro exciting is not moving from point a to point b. Any more than what makes SC2 marine micro is simply moving from point a to point b. It's the ability to attack retreat, attack retreat, then maybe move forward to snipe a tank and then retreat back with precise responses to your commands. There was also the cool tricks to defuse mines via micro. Please do not simplify the arguments in such a manner.
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?)
Well if not Dreamhack, then what? But how about MLG- they get a lot of the big Koreans? And I took a bunch of screenshots from there too. Now mind you, I'm not going out of my way to get these pictures to prove a point. I'm just watching games and then I get annoyed by what I'm seeing and fire up fraps.
Maybe GSL? I'll admit I can't watch that anymore as I can no longer go to work on 2 hours of sleep. But the interesting thing. But even when they spread out (from what I've seen), it's just smaller blobs.
But BW Protoss is not blobby at all. The joke is 1a2a3a, but it's all about spreading out your army, flanking the terran and coming in at all sides to minimize splash damage. Or being super mobile by recalling your army around the map with multiple arbiters or hit and running with carriers. Basically anti-deathball. PvZ you could maybe make the argument for blobby (late game), but then it's the zerg armies that fills the screen. Even PvP, you need that nice spread out concave for effective dragoon fire as well as minimizing storm damage.
There were plenty of "doormats" at MLG as well, but the overall caliber of play was much higher. Polt, Stephano, MarineKing, Symbol, Violet etc. all played some incredible games that demonstrated just how untapped SC2's potential is. The unit control and in-battle decision-making displayed by those players just completely outclassed that of the lesser participants'.
Don't blame the game for shortcomings of its playerbase. As pro players continue to improve, the clumpiness, blobbiness, etc. will phase out in favor of the (far more efficient) spreading, poking, re-arranging, distracting, etc.
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice.
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice.
You can't get even get into NA plat without being able to avoid 1a-ing into a sieged Terran army.
Do you deny that players with superior unit/overall army control are regularly mopping the floor with their opponents?
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice.
You can't get even get into NA plat without being able to avoid 1a-ing into a sieged Terran army.
Do you deny that players with superior unit/overall army control are regularly mopping the floor with their opponents?
Oh no. My argument has never been there is no such thing as unit control in SC2 or that it makes no difference. Far from it or I wouldn't even bother watching MLG. I think there are some very good moments in SC2. But all I want is more. More of everything good and less boring play. And while I agree players will find new ways, I think there are some very intentional game design changes that Blizzard could make that could dial this process up to the max. I don't know, is that an unreasonable position to take?
Edit It's just that the counter to some of my arguments are, well you haven't been looking at high enough level play. Whereas, I can point to low level play in BW that has incredible spectator moments. Even D players muta micro and vulture micro. And specifically, D level army control that has armies that take up entire screens with flanking.
I mean, you say they aren't bringing them back, but watching the HotS stuff I've seen, I felt like I was seeing mech versions of firebats, and spider mines on crack.
I think they're doing a good job of re-introducing units similar to what we miss, but with changes that make them better fit into gaps in the current meta, and I'm very glad for it.
I'm super excited about HotS, and while we don't have lurkers, other units are being given the capabilities to fill the role they served, so that Zerg players have a diverse toolkit. I'm actually rather glad it isn't a decade old toolkit.
The joke is 1a2a3a for a reason. Players learned how to be more efficient with their big armies, and the top players certainly had their armies all over the place. But it's not like that happened overnight. Or by default, either. It took a lot of time, and a lot of skill, for the game to get to that point.
I don't think you could get into D without being able to hit the Terran from all angles. It's takes time, but not 2 whole years of dedicated practice.
You can't get even get into NA plat without being able to avoid 1a-ing into a sieged Terran army.
Do you deny that players with superior unit/overall army control are regularly mopping the floor with their opponents?
Oh no. My argument has never been there is no such thing as unit control in SC2 or that it makes no difference. Far from it or I wouldn't even bother watching MLG. I think there are some very good moments in SC2. But all I want is more. More of everything good and less boring play. And while I agree players will find new ways, I think there are some very intentional game design changes that Blizzard could make that could dial this process up to the max. I don't know, is that an unreasonable position to take?
Edit It's just that the counter to some of my arguments are, well you haven't been looking at high enough level play. Whereas, I can point to low level play in BW that has incredible spectator moments. Even D players muta micro and vulture micro. And specifically, D level army control that has armies that take up entire screens with flanking.
There are points in low-level play in SC2 with incredible spectator moments as well. They're just not nearly as frequent as they are with the top players.
I agree that SC2 could use more of everything good and less boring play. I also feel that the player-driven side of that process is adequate. The new units being introduced in HotS appear to be less death-bally so far as well, so it's not as if Blizzard isn't trying to promote the good stuff.
The engine and interface don't need to have artificial limitations given to them to fix these problems. The pathing doesn't need to be made less precise to fix these problems. Most of them will fix themselves as the game grows, and Blizzard has proven willing to give us more tools to add to our toolbox if needed to fix the rest.
The engine and interface don't need to have artificial limitations given to them to fix these problems. The pathing doesn't need to be made less precise to fix these problems. Most of them will fix themselves as the game grows, and Blizzard has proven willing to give us more tools to add to our toolbox if needed to fix the rest.
My contention is that it isn't as precise. Very few units allow such precise control as moving shot except the marine. It's not an artificial limitation to add more micro possibilities. If anything, SC2 has imposed it's own artificial limitations either due to unit design (sluggish control- Thor's are only the most extreme example) or else Battlenet latency.
Clumping is different, but I don't know if it's more precise than well designed dynamic movement.
I think people get hung up with all the bugs found in the BW ai, but I don't think anyone would argue for a copy-paste of the unit ai (if that were possible.) However, there are some very specific unit control options that if reborn with modern coding would breathe life into unit interactions in any modern RTS game (SupCom2, C&C4, Battle for MiddleEarth2 included.)
The engine and interface don't need to have artificial limitations given to them to fix these problems. The pathing doesn't need to be made less precise to fix these problems. Most of them will fix themselves as the game grows, and Blizzard has proven willing to give us more tools to add to our toolbox if needed to fix the rest.
My contention is that it isn't as precise. Very few units allow such precise control as moving shot except the marine. It's not an artificial limitation to add more micro possibilities. If anything, SC2 has imposed it's own artificial limitations either due to unit design (sluggish control- Thor's are only the most extreme example) or else Battlenet latency.
Clumping is different, but I don't know if it's more precise than well designed dynamic movement.
I think people get hung up with all the bugs found in the BW ai, but I don't think anyone would argue for a copy-paste of the unit ai (if that were possible.) However, there are some very specific unit control options that if reborn with modern coding would breathe life into unit interactions in any modern RTS game (SupCom2, C&C4, Battle for MiddleEarth2 included.)
Would love for more micro-based units. Which is largely what we're getting with HotS.
Clumping is completely more precise than dynamic movement. Since all units take the shortest possible path to the target area, they will do the same thing every time when identically placed. Every time. The same thing. That's the very definition of precise.
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.
These people arguing against introducing more micro by reducing clumping, bringing back moving shot and all the consequences related to these changes are deluded. You people are the reason lady gaga can bring out another crappy album and make millions of it. Instead of being satisfied with whatever they stomp down your throat, you should strife to create something perfect. Always strife to make something better. So what blizzard has to change the balance? Perfection requires work. HOTS as of now isn't changing these core elements, which is incredibly sad. Have you people ever even watched brood war games? Massive spread out battles, going all over the place, with ton of micro is what people want to see. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
How do they prove anything negative about me when both statements are factually correct?
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).
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.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
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?)
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?
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
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.
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.
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.
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile.
I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net?
On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:
On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor.
Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example.
Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups.
Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2.
I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game.
MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding.
I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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. Heck, everytime this topic has come up, you can be guaranteed there's going to be a host of BW clips that I'm sure SC2 only fans have gotten sick of. I'm not sure how we could've been more specific.
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.
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
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.
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.
Why do we need to explain to people who have only a faint idea what an RTS is about how a very specific attack works? Do you do that with marine splitting as well? It visually stand on it's own as impressive. Of course the more they know about it, the more impressive it is, but move shot requires no explanation when you see it in action.
I think you are getting hung up on the word "stop" as somehow being counterintuitive. Would it help to say what you are doing is stopping the unit from going one direction and immediately sending it another direction after firing a shot? The importance is in the speed that the unit can change directions and shoot.
Now if 'Hold" is too confusing you can find some unused key and designate it "fire" or something, but that's a purely cosmetic change. I'm not sure why we're relying on intuition here when all you need to read or be told how to perform these cool tricks that the pro's have learned. It's a perfectly reasonable series of commands. Forward motion. Halt forward motion and fire, Backwards motion. However, because of the unit design, the switch from one direction to the other, the unit doesn't lose momentum. Whereas unmicroed units will do what they do in SC2, come to a stop and fire. Or else slow down slightly/ behave somewhat sluggishly.
Giving every unit the ability of "glide" makes the game super cluttered when the same trick can be used over and over again without turning it into an "ability." Especially if you end up adding cooldown or something like blink. The biggest importance is that it units with constant attention perform supremely better than simply a-moving it. It rewards multitaskers and people of skill and it is super, super fast. Twitch control is I think what Day9 calls it. It's one of the fundamental things most modern RTS's are missing. (SupCom2 being a prime example.)
Animation-cancelling is actually very common to see in Dota/Moba style games as well, which is more or less what patrol micro for vultures tries to achieve. I don't really see why it can't be implemented into something like SC2. I wouldn't care less if it wasn't used with the patrol button, but this sort of behavior does increase maneuverability of units. To BW players, SC2 without this sort of control is a lot like not having stutter step in SC2.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Why do we need to explain to people who have only a faint idea what an RTS is about how a very specific attack works? Do you do that with marine splitting as well?
Marine splitting makes sense, as long as you understand two things. 1: Marines face Banelings. 2: Banelings do AoE damage. Splitting is immediately obvious as a solution to this problem.
It's obviously very difficult to do. But the person who has only the faintest idea of what an RTS is can understand it. That's what makes for an intuitive mechanic.
As to why mechanics should be intuitive... I'm not sure that's a question that needs answers. Everything should be intuitive; the better question is why the mechanic should be unintuitive.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Of course the more they know about it, the more impressive it is, but move shot requires no explanation when you see it in action.
Sure it does. When I first saw Muta micro, I tried executing it by doing what it looked like they were doing. Moving forward, attack-moving, moving backwards, then moving forwards again. It didn't work.
Again, look at Marine splitting. How to split Marines is obvious. Select some of them them; tell them to move. Select others; tell them to move. Actually executing it is hard, but knowing what to do is both simple and obvious.
"Moving shot" is not. And that's the problem with it. It should still be hard to do, but the fact that it is even possible should not be hidden from players. If you see someone doing it, you should have a pretty good idea of how to do it, even if you're not good enough to actually pull it off yourself.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Now if 'Hold" is too confusing you can find some unused key and designate it "fire" or something, but that's a purely cosmetic change. I'm not sure why we're relying on intuition here when all you need to read or be told how to perform these cool tricks that the pro's have learned.
Listen to yourself. You're saying that it's a good thing to make a move so unintuitive that the only way you would ever find out how to do it is to look it up in a guide.
Strategy timing is something you can work out for yourself. You can do the math, figure out how many minerals you get per minute, figure out when it's safe to expand. You can figure out which units work against which other units. You can find unit compositions, upgrade timings, etc. You can do all of that by yourself.
But if you want to micro like the pros, you have to read some online guide. You can't figure it out for yourself because of how unintuitive it is. Someone has to tell you.
How is this a good thing? Isn't that the sign of an unintuitive interface?
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: It's a perfectly reasonable series of commands. Forward motion. Halt forward motion and fire, Backwards motion. However, because of the unit design, the switch from one direction to the other, the unit doesn't lose momentum.
That's where it becomes unreasonable. By definition, if you have executed the "halt forward motion and fire" command, you have lost momentum. Momentum comes from motion; if you've halted it, then you've lost momentum. There's simply no connection between this sequence of commands and the effect you get of retaining speed.
You say it's "because of unit design"; that's exactly where the unintuitive part comes from. The units do not behave as the commands you give them would lead you to expect. Why do you have to use "halt forward motion and fire" instead of "attack/move in that direction?" Why is it that the latter functions in a completely different way? Wouldn't it make sense that if you want the unit to stop and attack, you use the command that causes the unit to stop and attack? You know, the attack command?
This sequence of commands is used because it works, because it does what you want. Not because it makes sense.
Blizzard simply took this stuff away because it didn't make sense (though more technically, they simply never put it in because they didn't replicate the unintended behavior in SC1's AI). I'm saying that they should change the sequence of commands so that it does make sense.
Permit me an analogy. In the early days of multiplayer FPS games, there were two "advanced" moves that came to the forefront: rocket jumping and bunny hopping.
Rocket jumping is a very intuitive mechanic. What you need to understand in order to perform it is precisely four things: 1: explosions send people flying. 2: you can survive explosions if you have enough life. 3: you can fire rockets (which cause explosions when they hit things) in any direction. 4: you can jump. Rocket jumping is made inevitable by these simple facts. I discovered rocket jumping by seeing someone else do it. And once I saw it, I started doing it myself. It obviously took time before I was skilled at it, but it was clear and obvious what they were doing.
Bunny hopping is a completely different beast. It is an outgrowth of the way that a certain optimization in the movement and collision-response systems were coded in certain early FPS games. You can watch someone doing bunny hopping and have no idea at all how they're doing it. You can see that they're jumping and moving around, but you can't learn from just that. You would need a guide or tutorial to figure it out.
One mechanic is obvious and intuitive. The other is not. Now yes, bunny hopping has had a strong effect on competitive FPS play; I'm not disputing that. But you can't tell me that they couldn't change the method of executing bunny hopping into something more intuitive for players, so that they could discover them for themselves.
I don't understand how someone can be against the interface making sense. You still have all that control and such you want from SC1. You just have an interface where it makes more sense and is obvious for everyone what's happening.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Giving every unit the ability of "glide" makes the game super cluttered when the same trick can be used over and over again without turning it into an "ability." Especially if you end up adding cooldown or something like blink. The biggest importance is that it units with constant attention perform supremely better than simply a-moving it. It rewards multitaskers and people of skill and it is super, super fast. Twitch control is I think what Day9 calls it. It's one of the fundamental things most modern RTS's are missing. (SupCom2 being a prime example.)
Marines don't have "moving shot" in SC1; only certain units can do that. So you pick some units that you want to be microable in this way.
My point is that by making it an explicit ability, it draws attention to it and invites players to actually use it, rather than hiding it behind the interface and making it something you have to look up online. You can explain with the in-game interface, telling the player how the ability affects how the unit moves and responds.
Thus, the ability isn't hidden in some community's online wiki; it's not some hack cobbled together by dozens of players who stumbled onto some aspect of the game's physics system. It is a fundamental, designed part of the game.
Combos in Street Fighter were an accident, an outgrowth of a programming anomaly, just like this sort of micro. But Capcom embraced it and made it a fundamental part of the game. They took move-canceling and used it.
All I'm suggesting is that Blizzard do the same. Not by simply porting it over exactly as it was, but by doing what Capcom did: embracing it and adopting it as a designed feature. Blizzard should take this behavior and wrap it in an explicit ability, where it can be easily seen and otherstood.
Not to mention, by making it an ability, you can now have different kinds of these movement abilities. I can't come up with an example right now, but the concept has plenty of design potential behind it.
On June 21 2012 14:24 Nazza wrote: Animation-cancelling is actually very common to see in Dota/Moba style games as well, which is more or less what patrol micro for vultures tries to achieve. I don't really see why it can't be implemented into something like SC2. I wouldn't care less if it wasn't used with the patrol button, but this sort of behavior does increase maneuverability of units. To BW players, SC2 without this sort of control is a lot like not having stutter step in SC2.
Agreed. I'd like to see these techniques be made available in SC2. Just not in the same way that they were available in SC1.
So Nicol, how can we get Browder and his team to implement moving shot/patrol micro and 'twitch control' as designed features in SC2?
They have already shown reluctance for moving shot, and the joke that is phoenix control is like a slap in the face to anyone who actually understood moving shot and why it was exciting.
I propose we make a mod of SC2 with a popular BW map with our proposed control/unit spacing changes, somehow get it in the hands of TLBS, and start a populist movement to get these in SC2 or else.
On June 28 2012 23:58 0neder wrote: So Nicol, how can we get Browder and his team to implement moving shot/patrol micro and 'twitch control' as designed features in SC2?
They have already shown reluctance for moving shot, and the joke that is phoenix control is like a slap in the face to anyone who actually understood moving shot and why it was exciting.
I propose we make a mod of SC2 with a popular BW map with our proposed control/unit spacing changes, somehow get it in the hands of TLBS, and start a populist movement to get these in SC2 or else.
If it actually happens, it would be because of something like this. The most important aspect is communication, which requires two things: stating the idea clearly, and delivering that information to the party in question.
The best way to make it absolutely clear what the community wants is with an actual, in-game example. I wouldn't suggest using a SC1 map for it; a SC2 map would work just as well.
Indeed, that's probably one of the biggest obstacles: so many arguments for these things will often harp on how SC1 had it, and how much better SC2 would be if it just did things the way SC1 did it. Well, Blizzard doesn't want to hear that. Whether that's right for them to ignore that argument or not is irrelevant; they clearly mentally tune out when people start talking SC1 mechanics.
So it's important that this map not simply dump SC1 units into SC2. It can't just be a modification of the SC2BW map. It needs to use StarCraft II units and elements. The argument cannot be, "These were good in SC1. Put it in SC2." The argument must be, "These are good ideas. Put them in SC2." And the best way to do that is to use existing SC2 units and twink them out.
Such a map would make it very clear what it is that the community is asking for. And that the community isn't just bellyaching because SC2 isn't SC1, that these ideas have merit regardless of where they come from.
The issue then is actually getting the information through Blizzard's wall of information. To do that would require getting pro players to talk about it alot. Get Day[9] to talk about it. The key is to do something more than just have a map and post it on the forums. People who routinely have Blizzard's ear, like regular interviewers, need to be bringing the map up. In short, the community needs to say, in one clear, strong voice, DO THIS!
People should make skills videos, showing off the skill difference between low-level micro and high-level micro. Hell, someone could make a tutorial explaining in meticulous detail exactly how the mechanics work with each unit, showing off the default attack-move behavior, followed by how to use the mechanic to achieve greater control and effects.
And again, the community needs to downplay the SC1 connection; I can't stress this enough. If you want to pierce Blizzard's wall of information, it is vital that it not be seen as whining about how SC2 is not like SC1. The argument is, and must always be, that these mechanics make SC2 better. If the community starts talking about it as "the SC1 in SC2 map," or whatever, then it's DOA. Blizzard will just put their hands over their ears and pretend nobody's saying anything.
The map would need to have a good name. Something catchy. Something that would state what it's all about without also being condescending towards SC2. I'm not good with names, so that's up to whoever does it.
Ultimately, if the community really wants this, it will require a concerted effort. That means getting lots of important people on-board with promoting it. We build the map, then we put the map everywhere. We get lots of people playing it and talking about it. We get lots of people promoting it.
This map needs to be so big that Blizzard simply can't ignore it.
And you'll also need to understand that Blizzard isn't going to do it for HOTS; it's way too late for changes like this (especially the spacing thing, as it would require a lot of unit rebalancing).
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Looks like a nash equilibrium here. The community would be upset at either option, but blizz opts to go for the less practical path because the outcome of each prospective event would be greater despite the diminishing of the whole.
All in all, we get a shittier game, people keep complaining, and everything gets worse.
On June 17 2012 01:08 ejozl wrote: You forgot the flying defiler, the viper. But ye, blizz staff is running out of ideas. Just look at the tempest....
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
Quake 2 was not quake 1 , CiV is not CiV IV , diablo 2 is not diablo 1 and many many more games can be named in this example Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ? , answer is everyone that play BW + like 20-30% of people that buy Sc2 already , maby 30% , but not more. You can write what you wanna.. , but the fact is Sc2 is revolution in RTS games , in E-sport. Look how many pro gamers switch from other games , you think they would swtich to 3D copy of BW ? ,where players that play it for years should win every tournament. Sc2 made so many names in e-sport.. TLO , Morrow , Torzain ..Moon , Grubby BOXER ! , JulyZerg MMA NesTea MVP and many many more... They all come from diffrent games.. with diffrent history... but they are all united under Sc2.
Like i write , you can shit talk over blizzard , over Dustin.. but they make revolution with sc2 in e-sport. Only LOL is now bigger e-sport title then sc2 , its casual game and we cant compere that , but yes LOL has big numbers. And now imagine... Sc2 is ONLY 1.5 year old...no expansion ... balance is not finish.
Wait for last expansion for Sc2 and then write blizz staff is running out of ideas... now everyone is a developer.. , its funny.. like at EURO 2012 In Poland/Ukraine , when team is wining its ok , but when it lose a game , everyone is coach, they know better what goes wrong etc..
On June 29 2012 10:56 Dontkillme wrote: This is SCII not SC:BW so if they bring back old units, they will be criticized for not being creative IMO.
The amount of people wanting something completely new pales in number to the people that long for better unit designs of BW. They either want new good unit designs or BW units, since Browder's team is hit-or-miss with unit design, they call for the latter.
On June 29 2012 10:55 pallad wrote: Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ?
Your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating a 3D remake of BW, nor are most in this thread. The point of this thread is: if you're going to rehash SC2 units ANYWAY, and they don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting, WHY NOT just add the old unit back in?
There is a generation of players unfamiliar with BW, why would they criticize SC2 for unoriginality? Of course they wouldn't Sc2 is new to them! Then, there is a generation of players whose favorite unit is the lurker, reaver, defiler, etc. the lurker is probably the most beloved BW unit by players! Just ask Day9. NonY picked it up because of the Reaver. Same with Boxer.
Additionally, players like Fantasy made their career on vulture patrol micro and others on lurker usage. SC2 would KEEP the adoration of the best RTS players in the world for sure if moving shot were implemented. Now it remains to be seen, and based on initial reaction and the emotional rollercoaster of being the best in the world at something and having to start at zero again, TLBS and their caliber of players NEED to LOVE this sequel in order to have the motivation to repeat their past glory. Otherwise they will retire or try something new like LoL, etc.
So to answer your question, MUCH more people would play SC2 if it had a few more BW units, both in Korea and elsewhere. In particular, the SC2 pro playerbase would probably win back some attention from LoL.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Looks like a nash equilibrium here. The community would be upset at either option, but blizz opts to go for the less practical path because the outcome of each prospective event would be greater despite the diminishing of the whole.
All in all, we get a shittier game, people keep complaining, and everything gets worse.
No just your perception because everything was better back then.
On June 29 2012 10:56 Dontkillme wrote: This is SCII not SC:BW so if they bring back old units, they will be criticized for not being creative IMO.
The amount of people wanting something completely new pales in number to the people that long for better unit designs of BW. They either want new good unit designs or BW units, since Browder's team is hit-or-miss with unit design, they call for the latter.
On June 29 2012 10:55 pallad wrote: Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ?
Your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating a 3D remake of BW, nor are most in this thread. The point of this thread is: if you're going to rehash SC2 units ANYWAY, and they don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting, WHY NOT just add the old unit back in?
Because they're not the same. The Viper is not a Defiler. It has similar aspects to a Defiler, but it is not used the same way, it doesn't cost the same, and it creates different gameplay. It is a similar unit, but it is different.
Furthermore, it's not like the design space of StarCraft is infinite or something. If you want a Zerg unit that can control space, that is stronger when not moving, having it's positional effectiveness key off of burrow is a very natural, Zergish solution to this design problem. Exactly how it keys off of burrow is the difference between the Lurker and the Swarm Host, but they both come from the same idea. If SC1 never had a Lurker, the Swarm Host could still have been created.
It is a rehash only because it is the most sensible way of making a Zerg unit do that.
As for whether they "don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting," that's not a fact in evidence. That can only be determined with time.
Personally, I rather like Swarm Hosts more than Lurkers.
On June 29 2012 11:09 0neder wrote: There is a generation of players unfamiliar with BW, why would they criticize SC2 for unoriginality? Of course they wouldn't Sc2 is new to them! Then, there is a generation of players whose favorite unit is the lurker, reaver, defiler, etc. the lurker is probably the most beloved BW unit by players!
You seem to forget the generation that is both familiar with SC1 and wants something different for SC2. Shocking though it may be to believe, it's possible to like Lurkers, Reavers, and Defilers, while still wanting them replaced in SC2.
I liked SC1. I watched pro SC1 for a long time. And I still want a new game, with new units. Even if they do have similar abilities to old ones, I want that difference.
On June 29 2012 10:56 Dontkillme wrote: This is SCII not SC:BW so if they bring back old units, they will be criticized for not being creative IMO.
The amount of people wanting something completely new pales in number to the people that long for better unit designs of BW. They either want new good unit designs or BW units, since Browder's team is hit-or-miss with unit design, they call for the latter.
On June 29 2012 10:55 pallad wrote: Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ?
Your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating a 3D remake of BW, nor are most in this thread. The point of this thread is: if you're going to rehash SC2 units ANYWAY, and they don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting, WHY NOT just add the old unit back in?
There is a generation of players unfamiliar with BW, why would they criticize SC2 for unoriginality? Of course they wouldn't Sc2 is new to them! Then, there is a generation of players whose favorite unit is the lurker, reaver, defiler, etc. the lurker is probably the most beloved BW unit by players! Just ask Day9. NonY picked it up because of the Reaver. Same with Boxer.
Additionally, players like Fantasy made their career on vulture patrol micro and others on lurker usage. SC2 would KEEP the adoration of the best RTS players in the world for sure if moving shot were implemented. Now it remains to be seen, and based on initial reaction and the emotional rollercoaster of being the best in the world at something and having to start at zero again, TLBS and their caliber of players NEED to LOVE this sequel in order to have the motivation to repeat their past glory. Otherwise they will retire or try something new like LoL, etc.
So to answer your question, MUCH more people would play SC2 if it had a few more BW units, both in Korea and elsewhere. In particular, the SC2 pro playerbase would probably win back some attention from LoL.
I had to comment on this comment because its just so rediculous. The only people who you hear from on thread like this on any sc related site are complaining, complaining and doing more complaining making multiple threads all the time. People who like the game dont spend all day on multiple sites praising it. Only the complainers are creating threads all the time hence the reason it seems like there are more unhappy then happy. I think sc2 is not only a different game but a more advanced game. Its easy to balance units when the pathing ai is completely retarded for all units. No more dancing units anymore. The units actually work well. They have to balance units stats much more finely to help with the inherent imbalance that comes with advanced engines
On June 22 2012 06:03 NicolBolas wrote: My point is that by making it an explicit ability, it draws attention to it and invites players to actually use it, rather than hiding it behind the interface and making it something you have to look up online. You can explain with the in-game interface, telling the player how the ability affects how the unit moves and responds.
Thus, the ability isn't hidden in some community's online wiki; it's not some hack cobbled together by dozens of players who stumbled onto some aspect of the game's physics system. It is a fundamental, designed part of the game.
If someone enjoys playing the game I don't think it really matters if something is implicit or explicit, they'll eventually find out about it either way, but at least for me personally I think the difference lies in that if a game tries to explicitly state how to play it, it almost comes across as belittling, as though the game thinks I'm unable to think and work things out for myself, requiring force feeding for me to ever do anything. Working things out for yourself is the kind of thing that makes you feel good about a game and like it even more.
And as for the second point, I'd like to compare it to creep stacking in DotA. There's nothing in the game that states explicitly that you can stack creeps or what creep stacking would even achieve, yet a good chunk of people know how to do it and use it effectively. I actually get the impression that if the game tried to explain it to new players it would actually be detrimental since you'd have people doing it who more than likely don't fully understand the full implications of it so would just end up feeding the enemy team stacks and stacks of free ancients.
On June 17 2012 01:08 ejozl wrote: You forgot the flying defiler, the viper. But ye, blizz staff is running out of ideas. Just look at the tempest....
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
Quake 2 was not quake 1 , CiV is not CiV IV , diablo 2 is not diablo 1 and many many more games can be named in this example Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ? , answer is everyone that play BW + like 20-30% of people that buy Sc2 already , maby 30% , but not more. You can write what you wanna.. , but the fact is Sc2 is revolution in RTS games , in E-sport. Look how many pro gamers switch from other games , you think they would swtich to 3D copy of BW ? ,where players that play it for years should win every tournament. Sc2 made so many names in e-sport.. TLO , Morrow , Torzain ..Moon , Grubby BOXER ! , JulyZerg MMA NesTea MVP and many many more... They all come from diffrent games.. with diffrent history... but they are all united under Sc2.
Like i write , you can shit talk over blizzard , over Dustin.. but they make revolution with sc2 in e-sport. Only LOL is now bigger e-sport title then sc2 , its casual game and we cant compere that , but yes LOL has big numbers. And now imagine... Sc2 is ONLY 1.5 year old...no expansion ... balance is not finish.
Wait for last expansion for Sc2 and then write blizz staff is running out of ideas... now everyone is a developer.. , its funny.. like at EURO 2012 In Poland/Ukraine , when team is wining its ok , but when it lose a game , everyone is coach, they know better what goes wrong etc..
No, everyone is a gamer with an opinion. If they don't think Blizzard is putting out good ideas, then tough shit, they don't think Blizzard is putting out good ideas. Their opinion isn't invalidated because you have some ridiculous notion swirling in your head that you can't criticize a game developer without being a developer yourself. You'd be amazed to find out that Blizzard, the game developer, makes games for the gamers who play, and subsequently, criticize it, because you don't have to bend over and accept everything -- regardless of whether or not Blizzard is doing a good job with SC2.
It isn't our JOB to give Blizzard ideas. We don't get PAID. They do. We CHOOSE to play the game they MADE for US. And the sad part is, whether or not HotS turns out to be amazing, we're all going to buy it regardless. So we now must hold them to their high standards.
On June 17 2012 01:08 ejozl wrote: You forgot the flying defiler, the viper. But ye, blizz staff is running out of ideas. Just look at the tempest....
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
This is a really stupid argument, because you cant just abandon the first installment of a series which are linked by a story. Thus the removal of the Carrier in HotS is really stupid. The main point of criticism is that BW had a decent balance and neat gameplay/competition and Blizzard *should have* learned that "more and faster" doesnt equal to "better" in an RTS.
The new units shown in the first alpha version of HotS are sooo imbalanced that it really hurts, because the imbalance isnt really fixed by twiddling numbers (damage), but rather unfixable due to the design. Best example for this is the Viper, which gets a super defensive ability to make themselves "immune" against most ground units while being able to circumvent/neutralize/kill any strategy involving expensive units ... without the opponent being able to do anything against it. In that regard it is much worse that Mind Control, because you can simply kill the Infestor controlling your Thor or Colossus and it isnt simply pulled into a deathtrap instantly.
The balancing of abilities in BW was really acceptable, but the new mechanics of SC2 (larva inject, MULE, chronoboost, tight unit formation, unlimited unit selection) make an adjustment of balance rather necessary before adding a BW unit. Area attacks have been tuned down A LOT already (in comparison to BW stats) at the beginning of SC2 as an example.
So to answer your post and sticking to your style: SC2 IS A SEQUEL AND NEEDS TO HAVE MORE STUFF FROM THE FIRST PART!
mm well if anything I don't like how they are bringing blinding cloud into the game. Zerg already has fungal and banes against marines, wont the blinding cloud be big overkill? If anything, zerg needs something against a protoss deathball rather than a terran deathball. So bringing a sort of (I know it's not dark swarm. Hell, if it were dark swarm it wouldve been a good addition) BW ability back doesn't seem so great, because it simply doesnt fit within the current standing of the game.
Does anyone have any info as to why they are adding in another anti-bio ability for zerg btw?
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
This is a really stupid argument, because you cant just abandon the first installment of a series which are linked by a story. Thus the removal of the Carrier in HotS is really stupid. The main point of criticism is that BW had a decent balance and neat gameplay/competition and Blizzard *should have* learned that "more and faster" doesnt equal to "better" in an RTS.
I just wish the Carrier was cut from the start. The explanation that Auier is in ruins and that they've settled their capital in Shakuras was enough for me. My quote about the Tempest being unoriginal, is because: At first they made it a counter to late game mutas. They then proceeded to kinda fix it with the phoenix range upgrade and got bad feedback back from the community about the Tempest. They removed the splash and was stuck with this silly looking model and i can just imagine up to the MLG HotS testing, they were at a meeting talking about, how to make the unit more interesting and said, how about we give it a ridiculous range and so they did. The unit seems really rushed and flawed design-wise.
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
This is a really stupid argument, because you cant just abandon the first installment of a series which are linked by a story. Thus the removal of the Carrier in HotS is really stupid. The main point of criticism is that BW had a decent balance and neat gameplay/competition and Blizzard *should have* learned that "more and faster" doesnt equal to "better" in an RTS.
I just wish the Carrier was cut from the start. The explanation that Auier is in ruins and that they've settled their capital in Shakuras was enough for me. My quote about the Tempest being unoriginal, is because: At first they made it a counter to late game mutas. They then proceeded to kinda fix it with the phoenix range upgrade and got bad feedback back from the community about the Tempest. They removed the splash and was stuck with this silly looking model and i can just imagine up to the MLG HotS testing, they were at a meeting talking about, how to make the unit more interesting and said, how about we give it a ridiculous range and so they did. The unit seems really rushed and flawed design-wise.
I would like to add that this is the original tempest :
@1:22
Blizzard actually never have a consistent theme for this unit and just change them however they want it. The name and the model to them has nothing to deal with its gameply (unlike the colossus)
[QUOTE]On June 29 2012 20:15 Roarer wrote: [QUOTE]On June 29 2012 20:06 ejozl wrote: [quote] I would like to add that this is the original tempest : [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30MBljXxg3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30MBljXxg3M[/url]
@1:22
Blizzard actually never have a consistent theme for this unit and just change them however they want it. The name and the model to them has nothing to deal with its gameply (unlike the colossus)[/QUOTE]
Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
On June 28 2012 23:58 0neder wrote: So Nicol, how can we get Browder and his team to implement moving shot/patrol micro and 'twitch control' as designed features in SC2?
They have already shown reluctance for moving shot, and the joke that is phoenix control is like a slap in the face to anyone who actually understood moving shot and why it was exciting.
I propose we make a mod of SC2 with a popular BW map with our proposed control/unit spacing changes, somehow get it in the hands of TLBS, and start a populist movement to get these in SC2 or else.
If it actually happens, it would be because of something like this. The most important aspect is communication, which requires two things: stating the idea clearly, and delivering that information to the party in question.
The best way to make it absolutely clear what the community wants is with an actual, in-game example. I wouldn't suggest using a SC1 map for it; a SC2 map would work just as well.
Indeed, that's probably one of the biggest obstacles: so many arguments for these things will often harp on how SC1 had it, and how much better SC2 would be if it just did things the way SC1 did it. Well, Blizzard doesn't want to hear that. Whether that's right for them to ignore that argument or not is irrelevant; they clearly mentally tune out when people start talking SC1 mechanics.
So it's important that this map not simply dump SC1 units into SC2. It can't just be a modification of the SC2BW map. It needs to use StarCraft II units and elements. The argument cannot be, "These were good in SC1. Put it in SC2." The argument must be, "These are good ideas. Put them in SC2." And the best way to do that is to use existing SC2 units and twink them out.
Such a map would make it very clear what it is that the community is asking for. And that the community isn't just bellyaching because SC2 isn't SC1, that these ideas have merit regardless of where they come from.
The issue then is actually getting the information through Blizzard's wall of information. To do that would require getting pro players to talk about it alot. Get Day[9] to talk about it. The key is to do something more than just have a map and post it on the forums. People who routinely have Blizzard's ear, like regular interviewers, need to be bringing the map up. In short, the community needs to say, in one clear, strong voice, DO THIS!
People should make skills videos, showing off the skill difference between low-level micro and high-level micro. Hell, someone could make a tutorial explaining in meticulous detail exactly how the mechanics work with each unit, showing off the default attack-move behavior, followed by how to use the mechanic to achieve greater control and effects.
And again, the community needs to downplay the SC1 connection; I can't stress this enough. If you want to pierce Blizzard's wall of information, it is vital that it not be seen as whining about how SC2 is not like SC1. The argument is, and must always be, that these mechanics make SC2 better. If the community starts talking about it as "the SC1 in SC2 map," or whatever, then it's DOA. Blizzard will just put their hands over their ears and pretend nobody's saying anything.
The map would need to have a good name. Something catchy. Something that would state what it's all about without also being condescending towards SC2. I'm not good with names, so that's up to whoever does it.
Ultimately, if the community really wants this, it will require a concerted effort. That means getting lots of important people on-board with promoting it. We build the map, then we put the map everywhere. We get lots of people playing it and talking about it. We get lots of people promoting it.
This map needs to be so big that Blizzard simply can't ignore it.
And you'll also need to understand that Blizzard isn't going to do it for HOTS; it's way too late for changes like this (especially the spacing thing, as it would require a lot of unit rebalancing).
I very, very, very like your idea. But the wall is REALLY big, look at Barrin thread. Got hyped, got played in small tournament, got small response from some blizz worker. Died out. Was not really mentioned by interviewers, which i found odd. I also found odd that interviewers dont even try to push Browder / co-workers when they get the chance. There are like dozen good ideas running around and not being mentioned / responded to.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
SC2 is more successful only because of 2 things: 1. People pour incredibly amount of money into SC2 (including Blizzard) 2. It is much more newb-friendly than BW As far as gameplay goes, nearly all (or all) progamers and hardcore gamers prefer BW, because it's skill cap is much higher (and I'm not talking about shitty mechanics, but rather micro intensive units (like Reaver, Lurker, Vulture etc.) and not the deathball a-move units, and has much lower luck factor.
SC2 will never be BW. BW is a legend and the unique-ness will never be replaced. but it doesn't mean SC2 is that bad. And I actually don't want SC2 to be like BW in 3d.
Here is what I think Sc2 is doing really well compare to BW!
Simple Design:
E-sport is growing pretty fast because we (the first generation gamer) have grown up and have money to support something we love and grow up with. This slowly spread to our friends that doesn't play or watch E-sport/Starcraft. But SC2 have successfully spread to non-gamer, why? Because the simplicity in the design concept.
The best example I can give is Hellion vs Vulture. From a first glance of the vulture, you actually would not know exactly what it does. You can only get a feeling of "Fast" "Raider" but that's about it. You will not have a clue that it lay mines, and shoot some sort of grenade...etc.
On the other hand, a Hellion, a speedy car with actual wheels and a flame thrower on top. Any audience can understand immediately what it does completely. Shoot a line of fire, it will burn a marine, zerglings. Trying to burn a building or marauder, takes forever. Everyone understand with the first glance.
This apply to other units in comparison, such as baneling and a scourge. The green bubbling liquid bomb bug to a bat. The audience need to know immediately that baneling is a suicidal bomb bug.
I think this is the reason why blizzard makes SC2 units more simple, unique and clear. So that normal people can watch it, and knows what they are watching, what's happening.
For a unit micro ability, SC2 is lacking a lot. Even though there are many units giving you the opportunity to show off. Baneling vs marine is a good example, blink stalker, seeker missile...etc. But right now, there are too many units that destroy micro plays (*Cough Cough Colossus) and encourage death-ball style. Why does the Carrier not function the same way in SC1 Hopefully, this will be addressed in HOTS.
In terms of simple UI and noob friendly macro stuff. I think it is good. As recently Flash says that Nestea was actually a genius in BW but always lack the mechanic to bring out his inner beast. The winner of the real RTS should truly be won by the genius master but not the player who can click faster and more accurately. It is called RTS afterall, a strategy game. Who would want a person with fast hand to win a chess tournament instead of a master mind?
There is the "Real-Time" in the RTS thing, so the mechanic stuff is still there, and is now at a 50/50 level. More amazing players such as MC who isn't successful in BW can now show off their talent.
Path-ing will always be unique for BW, and there is nothing about that. SC2 should have accurate, tight clean path-ing. But, things have to be done to address death-ball vs death-ball. Right now, TvZ is fun to watch, because a T and Z can never A-move into each other's army. It is about splitting, positioning..etc etc. So, even with the SC2 path-ing, the units are there to discourage death-ball. We just need to see more of those.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
SC2 will never be BW. BW is a legend and the unique-ness will never be replaced. but it doesn't mean SC2 is that bad. And I actually don't want SC2 to be like BW in 3d.
Here is what I think Sc2 is doing really well compare to BW!
Simple Design:
E-sport is growing pretty fast because we (the first generation gamer) have grown up and have money to support something we love and grow up with. This slowly spread to our friends that doesn't play or watch E-sport/Starcraft. But SC2 have successfully spread to non-gamer, why? Because the simplicity in the design concept.
The best example I can give is Hellion vs Vulture. From a first glance of the vulture, you actually would not know exactly what it does. You can only get a feeling of "Fast" "Raider" but that's about it. You will not have a clue that it lay mines, and shoot some sort of grenade...etc.
On the other hand, a Hellion, a speedy car with actual wheels and a flame thrower on top. Any audience can understand immediately what it does completely. Shoot a line of fire, it will burn a marine, zerglings. Trying to burn a building or marauder, takes forever. Everyone understand with the first glance.
This apply to other units in comparison, such as baneling and a scourge. The green bubbling liquid bomb bug to a bat. The audience need to know immediately that baneling is a suicidal bomb bug.
I think this is the reason why blizzard makes SC2 units more simple, unique and clear. So that normal people can watch it, and knows what they are watching, what's happening.
For a unit micro ability, SC2 is lacking a lot. Even though there are many units giving you the opportunity to show off. Baneling vs marine is a good example, blink stalker, seeker missile...etc. But right now, there are too many units that destroy micro plays (*Cough Cough Colossus) and encourage death-ball style. Why does the Carrier not function the same way in SC1 Hopefully, this will be addressed in HOTS.
In terms of simple UI and noob friendly macro stuff. I think it is good. As recently Flash says that Nestea was actually a genius in BW but always lack the mechanic to bring out his inner beast. The winner of the real RTS should truly be won by the genius master but not the player who can click faster and more accurately. It is called RTS afterall, a strategy game. Who would want a person with fast hand to win a chess tournament instead of a master mind?
There is the "Real-Time" in the RTS thing, so the mechanic stuff is still there, and is now at a 50/50 level. More amazing players such as MC who isn't successful in BW can now show off their talent.
Path-ing will always be unique for BW, and there is nothing about that. SC2 should have accurate, tight clean path-ing. But, things have to be done to address death-ball vs death-ball. Right now, TvZ is fun to watch, because a T and Z can never A-move into each other's army. It is about splitting, positioning..etc etc. So, even with the SC2 path-ing, the units are there to discourage death-ball. We just need to see more of those.
Have faith in HOTS!
That's pretty subjective. Personally I think the vulture seems like a raider just because of two things, 1) a speed upgrade makes it the fastest unit in the game, 2) they two shot probes and drones. The cool thing about the vulture is that its role is not limited to harassment. Mines add a whole new dimension. With the hellion I cannot say as much, even though they are also used in large army mech engagements vs zerg as support.
I don't know man, Nestea in SC2 is (or I guess was) pretty famous for his mechanics as well lol. Yes FlaSh is pretty famous for his mechanics, but more so for his game sense (maphacks in the brain). If you looked at his FPVOD, you'd probably notice that he plays quite calmly instead of chaotically (if you want to see someone that is chaotic, try Hyuk). Also where is the source for this interview? I think Nestea is more famous for being able to detect proxies and metagaming than for being strategic.
Starcraft should always be a game about who has the better multitask (not to be confused with higher APM), and saying something like execution shouldn't matter is EXACTLY why we have a problem like this. Build Orders are easy to memorize relative to actually playing the game. Thinking about a unit composition is easy relative to actually microing units. But Starcraft shouldn't be about making units to counter units at all. I'm not saying that things like smartcast, MBS and infinite unit selection in the game, but even with these things, I think it is possible to come up with units that can be used in tactical situations.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
Also Maelstrom. And Lockdown. (And critters )
irradiate, dark swarm, optic flare...
BW had a lot of spells that prevented the ability to micro. People were just okay with them because they were fucking hard to use.
Dark Swarm made ALL your marines irrelevant? At least it was hard to get it off between tanks/sci vessels killing defilers.
Irradiate was an aoe and caused your bio unit to start twitching like a madman? (I'm looking at you ultralisk!) It's okay, it's hard to deselect a sci vessel from your army and target fire the right targets while still moving your army forward.
Lockdown? Maelstorm? Unlike forcefields those spells LITERALLY STOPS A UNIT/S FROM DOING ANYTHING. Forcefields? Your units can still fight back. Fungal? Your units can still shoot back.
The problem isn't that spells in SC2 prevents micro any more than spells in BW prevents micro--the problem stems that most players "feel" that SC2 spells are so much easier to use that it doesn't feel impressive that the forcefields landed perfectly, it doesn't feel impressive that the fungals landed perfectly. (Which a fungal has to, land perfectly that is. Dark Swarm can "miss" and you can still use the cloud to position units better. Fungal *has* to land or it doesn't do anything.)
Let me put it this way.
When Boxer lockdowned a fleet of battlecruisers and finished them off with Wraiths, no one complained that lockdown was imba because everyone had tried using lockdown and it was hard enough to get 1-2 to land let alone 10+
Perfectly cast lockdowns swings battles 10x more than perfectly cast snipes. But since snipes are easier to cast--no one gives players credit for doing it.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
The simpler Starcraft 2 AI also leads to much faster gameplay. As both players spend less time moving a giant army or changing the rally point of 10 Gateways, both players have to make more active unique decisions. Starcraft 2 all about the tactical decisions people make, and less aboout how amazing they are at getting around the crappy BW UI.
I belive it was either Flash or a BW coach who made the remark that Starcraft 2 is a much faster game than BW. At first glance this make little sense when in BW players need 300+ APM while Starcraft 2 you only need about 185(or even less). Yet how fast a game plays isn't about the amount of actions each player takes, but more about the choices each player makes.
Now in terms of HOTS. I belive there are a few gems Blizzard has come up with, and a few complete and utter fails design wise.
Swarm Host, Warhound and Widow Mine make little sense to me. Swarm Host is a shitty Broodlord, and thats it. Warhound will either be good enough to make Tanks useless or bad enough to never be made in the first place. Widow Mine is a crappy baneling mine that just forces your opponent to target fire whatever it latches onto.
On the other hand, the Viper, Mothership Core and Oracle are all awsome. They in some way fix a problem that the race has without stepping on any other units toes, and add new strategic possibilities.
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
Also Maelstrom. And Lockdown. (And critters )
irradiate, dark swarm, optic flare...
BW had a lot of spells that prevented the ability to micro. People were just okay with them because they were fucking hard to use.
Dark Swarm made ALL your marines irrelevant? At least it was hard to get it off between tanks/sci vessels killing defilers.
Irradiate was an aoe and caused your bio unit to start twitching like a madman? (I'm looking at you ultralisk!) It's okay, it's hard to deselect a sci vessel from your army and target fire the right targets while still moving your army forward.
Lockdown? Maelstorm? Unlike forcefields those spells LITERALLY STOPS A UNIT/S FROM DOING ANYTHING. Forcefields? Your units can still fight back. Fungal? Your units can still shoot back.
The problem isn't that spells in SC2 prevents micro any more than spells in BW prevents micro--the problem stems that most players "feel" that SC2 spells are so much easier to use that it doesn't feel impressive that the forcefields landed perfectly, it doesn't feel impressive that the fungals landed perfectly. (Which a fungal has to, land perfectly that is. Dark Swarm can "miss" and you can still use the cloud to position units better. Fungal *has* to land or it doesn't do anything.)
Let me put it this way.
When Boxer lockdowned a fleet of battlecruisers and finished them off with Wraiths, no one complained that lockdown was imba because everyone had tried using lockdown and it was hard enough to get 1-2 to land let alone 10+
Perfectly cast lockdowns swings battles 10x more than perfectly cast snipes. But since snipes are easier to cast--no one gives players credit for doing it.
No, I think spells in SC2 kill micro a lot more than you think. The thing about stasis/dark swarm was that they were all LATE GAME. By the time defilers/arbiters were out, you would have science vessels. And zerg would at least have scourge out when science vessels were out. Medic blind might not have been late game, but blind is pretty rare and you wouldn't use it in a normal game.
With forcefield, the two things that are meant to "counter" force field, massive units and medivacs, are not available. Infestors aren't even hive tech, and ghosts are relatively easy to tech to as well. You can't move away, you can't micro your units. With dark swarm/plague, your units weren't automatically dead, you could still move them back. And I don't know, even with stasis/emp in the game, progamers didn't spend 15 seconds trying to dance units trying to EMP the arbiter/stasis the army. Even if the vessels/units get stasised, you had the other half of the army to micro, and the units in stasis aren't automatically dead.
Forcefield especially prevents a lot of potential mid-game action to happen. Nowadays people don't even bother doing any mid-game harassment/pressure at all just because of how strong forcefield is. It makes the game quite boring imo.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
I don't know about the warhound, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that, but the swarm host is fundamentally different from the lurker, with the only similarities being very shallow. The lurker had a short range but devastating attack, making it sort of a sneaky siege tank kind of deal. It forced certain things on the opponent, like detection and caution. The swarm host is significantly different. It has a maximum effective range exceeding everything else, maybe even the Tempest. It wears down opponents, rather than obliterating them in a barrage of spikes. It changes engagements, giving a cost-effective front line-buffer for any damage dealers. It, as Dustin Browder said, provides the ability to pressure the opponent, to prevent them from turtling until you get Hive tech. Sure, it needs to burrow to attack, but that is just a base similarity, shallow really, compared to what it actually does. Inserting the lurker instead of the swarm host is retarded. By the way, did you know that the lurker used to be in the game, but it was removed due to having an overlapping role with banelings? Personally, I'd take the banelings too. Few things have been more thrilling to me than melting my enemies in a concussive shower of acid.
As for what this thread is actually about (lol), many units already in the game fill the roles of BW units in one way or another, or at least overlap with them. Also, many people would frown on an obvious copy/pasted unit anyways (myself included). Variants are often a healthy and fun middle ground. I personally like the middle ground of changing things up, but not on a fundamental and drastic level.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
A.) All units need perfect position. How often have we seen collosi dying to zerglings because they weren't positioned properly?
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
Imagine for a moment if there was a patch that said "Collosi costs half as much, does triple the damage, and doesn't need a range upgrade to be long range. Also, Vikings/Corruptors don't counter it but it moves slower"
It wasn't the unit design that made BW a good game (which I know it is), it was the synergies that made it a good game. Blind would be OP in SC2. Viking battles? Decided by medics. early tank pushes? Stopped by medics. chased away the medivac with troops in it? Blind it and suddenly they need to send it all the way back home to place/restore it because it'd be suicide to do drop play with a blind medivac.
Lockdown? It's like the opposite of snipe but only needs to hit once. If Lockdown was in SC2 mech place and protoss would be irrelevant.
Design wise, the BW units are not that great when put into a format with a smoother interface. They're not that great because design wise, the only things that made them balanced was a bad UI.
With a bad UI all the SC2 units would be just as "amazing" as BW units. Forcefields? Try casting that perfectly when you have to do it one sentry at a time. Snipe? Useless. Fungal? An aoe spell that deals less dps than a siege tank?
BW was good--don't think I don't see that. But stop pretending that it was unit design that made it "work."
forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I kind of feel bad for Blizzard in situations like this. There are basically 2 crowds, and neither of them are ever happy.
I remember when Starcraft 2 was first coming out, there were people on most game forums complaining that the game wasn't innovative enough and it needed to add features like Supreme Commander's zoom out, or a power system like the command and conquer series. Then when you came to communities with a big broodwar base like TL, you just got a ton of people complaining that it wasn't an exact clone of broodwar with 3d graphics.
I also don't get all the senseless hate for Dustin Browder. I mean, sure, BW was an amazingly well balanced game, and a lot of people prefer it to SC2. Thats fine. But when people say things like "They won't copy all the BW units because Browder is too arrogant!" I have a really hard time taking anything they say seriously. If they were just going to make a 3d version of BW they wouldn't even need game designers, they'd only need the guys to do the art and write the engine. The guy got hired to make a new game, and that is what he did. I'd even go as far as to say he did a great job with it. You can argue that SC1 is better, but SC2 is still more successful than pretty much every non-blizzard RTS.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
A.) All units need perfect position. How often have we seen collosi dying to zerglings because they weren't positioned properly?
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
Imagine for a moment if there was a patch that said "Collosi costs half as much, does triple the damage, and doesn't need a range upgrade to be long range. Also, Vikings/Corruptors don't counter it but it moves slower"
It wasn't the unit design that made BW a good game (which I know it is), it was the synergies that made it a good game. Blind would be OP in SC2. Viking battles? Decided by medics. early tank pushes? Stopped by medics. chased away the medivac with troops in it? Blind it and suddenly they need to send it all the way back home to place/restore it because it'd be suicide to do drop play with a blind medivac.
Lockdown? It's like the opposite of snipe but only needs to hit once. If Lockdown was in SC2 mech place and protoss would be irrelevant.
Design wise, the BW units are not that great when put into a format with a smoother interface. They're not that great because design wise, the only things that made them balanced was a bad UI.
With a bad UI all the SC2 units would be just as "amazing" as BW units. Forcefields? Try casting that perfectly when you have to do it one sentry at a time. Snipe? Useless. Fungal? An aoe spell that deals less dps than a siege tank?
BW was good--don't think I don't see that. But stop pretending that it was unit design that made it "work."
It's more like the blizzard of the old days are much more less intrusive and willing to let the game flow the way it is by the players hands and those who are playing this game for a living . That's what made it work and in a sense bad ui in bw actually was a good thing . No D player can macro as fast as a B rank player and a B rank player can't win a pro gamer in a bo5 maybe taking a single game if he is lucky .
I am a BW diehard. SC2 is a great game but multi select spell casting is a joke. Everytime I see a progamer just double click his infestors and spam fungle, the casters cream their pants and I just change the channel.
On June 30 2012 10:34 Postaljester wrote: I am a BW diehard. SC2 is a great game but multi select spell casting is a joke. Everytime I see a progamer just double click his infestors and spam fungle, the casters cream their pants and I just change the channel.
Lol so true. I do the exact same thing, change the channel. For toss at least though, I've found that when terrans started using ghosts, it made me start controlling HTs one at a time so they don't all get EMPed in a clump.
On June 30 2012 09:36 Cuce wrote: forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I completely disagree with your statement here. I don't know how it could be more contrary to reality.
Forcefield doesn't 'let' toss micro. Forcefield makes it so Toss doesn't really have to micro. Also it DOES mean you hit f and click a bunch of times, because the spell is such a commodity. Maybe if it were larger and cost more it wouldn't be so game-breaking. Toss can micro against those things on their own, and removing or altering forcefield would greatly promote that.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
A.) All units need perfect position. How often have we seen collosi dying to zerglings because they weren't positioned properly?
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
Imagine for a moment if there was a patch that said "Collosi costs half as much, does triple the damage, and doesn't need a range upgrade to be long range. Also, Vikings/Corruptors don't counter it but it moves slower"
It wasn't the unit design that made BW a good game (which I know it is), it was the synergies that made it a good game. Blind would be OP in SC2. Viking battles? Decided by medics. early tank pushes? Stopped by medics. chased away the medivac with troops in it? Blind it and suddenly they need to send it all the way back home to place/restore it because it'd be suicide to do drop play with a blind medivac.
Lockdown? It's like the opposite of snipe but only needs to hit once. If Lockdown was in SC2 mech place and protoss would be irrelevant.
Design wise, the BW units are not that great when put into a format with a smoother interface. They're not that great because design wise, the only things that made them balanced was a bad UI.
With a bad UI all the SC2 units would be just as "amazing" as BW units. Forcefields? Try casting that perfectly when you have to do it one sentry at a time. Snipe? Useless. Fungal? An aoe spell that deals less dps than a siege tank?
BW was good--don't think I don't see that. But stop pretending that it was unit design that made it "work."
Collosi don't need perfect position, they just need to be somewhat near a ball of stalkers/zealots/sentries. If they were so easy to snipe, then why would they give viper a pudge hook?
So basically, since SC2's interface supports spells that rely on being used in succession, then we should stick with those types of spells? There was this controversy with changing the middle mouse button so that it would act like a really fast left click, and many people considered that to be cheating. Granted, it wouldn't help with force fields, but I dislike the fact that you need to do multiple snipes or multiple infested terrans in the shortest time possible. It doesn't seem like a strategic decision at all, just a "battle" of whoever clicks faster.
Dark Swarm - A spell that makes zerg units invincible to all ranged unit attacks from terran, barring splash damage. Gained at hive tech. Good thing there's irradiate, and zerg has more than one expansion to pressure.
Force Field - A protoss spell that allows them 30 seconds of not being attacked when used on a ramp. Unlocked the moment the protoss cy core finishes.
On June 30 2012 09:36 Cuce wrote: forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I completely disagree with your statement here. I don't know how it could be more contrary to reality.
Forcefield doesn't 'let' toss micro. Forcefield makes it so Toss doesn't really have to micro. Also it DOES mean you hit f and click a bunch of times, because the spell is such a commodity. Maybe if it were larger and cost more it wouldn't be so game-breaking. Toss can micro against those things on their own, and removing or altering forcefield would greatly promote that.
honestly forcefields will always get hate because they enable the toss to literally create positioning. it's just very strong in so many situations.
What made BW work wasn't just the unit spells themselves, but the community for regulating their usage and banning / promoting certain behaviours which made the game interesting to watch. Alot of unintentional buggy features like workers/units glitching through solid objects / minerals and stacking was left in the game, just as many buggy features were banned from professional play like teleport / flying glitches and command center crushing interceptors. The players and organizers made maps specifically to cater to the game's unit abilities and these features, such as back door minerals / buildings, adjusting ramp sizes and openings, changing the pathing / cliffs / total area of the maps etc. There's been eras of terrible unbalance (Protoss Plains and Zerg Assault comes to mind =_=) and hilarious map design decisions like no gas naturals, but the community went with it and adjusted the meta game / map pool / rule set around unit abilities and features, not the other way around.
Old blizzard didn't removed patrol micro / portions of animation cancel, new blizzard did. Old blizzard didn't removed unit glitching through builds/minerals, new blizzard did (and added more pathing blocking abilities). Alot of these are to make the game more understandable and less obscure to new viewers, but the older method of adapting the meta game to the hard to land / difficult to manage features of the game added an extra sense of bewilderment and admiration for pulling off difficult stunts that SC2 doesn't. It's not nearly as impressive to watch units stream out of a zerg base in SC2 than it is in BW because in BW you knew that the player had to manage larvae and spawn at each base manually. It's alot less impressive to watch fungals land while an engagement occurs than plagues or dark swarms landing because you knew that the defiler had to cast consume and there was a 12 unit control limit and no smart casting.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
A.) All units need perfect position. How often have we seen collosi dying to zerglings because they weren't positioned properly?
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
Imagine for a moment if there was a patch that said "Collosi costs half as much, does triple the damage, and doesn't need a range upgrade to be long range. Also, Vikings/Corruptors don't counter it but it moves slower"
It wasn't the unit design that made BW a good game (which I know it is), it was the synergies that made it a good game. Blind would be OP in SC2. Viking battles? Decided by medics. early tank pushes? Stopped by medics. chased away the medivac with troops in it? Blind it and suddenly they need to send it all the way back home to place/restore it because it'd be suicide to do drop play with a blind medivac.
Lockdown? It's like the opposite of snipe but only needs to hit once. If Lockdown was in SC2 mech place and protoss would be irrelevant.
Design wise, the BW units are not that great when put into a format with a smoother interface. They're not that great because design wise, the only things that made them balanced was a bad UI.
With a bad UI all the SC2 units would be just as "amazing" as BW units. Forcefields? Try casting that perfectly when you have to do it one sentry at a time. Snipe? Useless. Fungal? An aoe spell that deals less dps than a siege tank?
BW was good--don't think I don't see that. But stop pretending that it was unit design that made it "work."
Collosi don't need perfect position, they just need to be somewhat near a ball of stalkers/zealots/sentries. If they were so easy to snipe, then why would they give viper a pudge hook?
So basically, since SC2's interface supports spells that rely on being used in succession, then we should stick with those types of spells? There was this controversy with changing the middle mouse button so that it would act like a really fast left click, and many people considered that to be cheating. Granted, it wouldn't help with force fields, but I dislike the fact that you need to do multiple snipes or multiple infested terrans in the shortest time possible. It doesn't seem like a strategic decision at all, just a "battle" of whoever clicks faster.
Dark Swarm - A spell that makes zerg units invincible to all ranged unit attacks from terran, barring splash damage. Gained at hive tech. Good thing there's irradiate, and zerg has more than one expansion to pressure.
Force Field - A protoss spell that allows them 30 seconds of not being attacked when used on a ramp. Unlocked the moment the protoss cy core finishes.
All just a matter of perspective....
Toss staying on 1base? Not teching because he's spending gas on sentries? OMG, collect ladder points and nerd tears then
How does it actually play out?
Toss FE
Vs Terran Toss uses Forcefields to create temporary choke points because it takes 2-4 forcefields to block things off and if toss makes too many sentries their main andvantage (tech) gets lost.
Vs Zerg Toss uses properly timed forcefields to protect parts of a wall already present no different than a siege tank protects a supply depot wall in BW. Unless you think BW is shit, this is actually a good thing.
How Does Dark Swarm play out? Dark swarm is cast, all terran units in the area are countered. Now is it hard to Dark Swarm? Yes. But that's a UI issue, not a design one. Design wise its a spell that counters a race, much like the Dragoon counters an entire tech tree. Imagine if Barracks play in SC2 gets countered simply because a Cyber Core was built? Yup.... That's BW design right there.
Every Sentry added to a toss army early game is less tech and less DPS for the toss to fight with. The Protoss army actually becomes less powerful and more dependent on perfect play to be effective. Which, you know, a good thing.
What's my point? My point is that the games are VERY different. The reason Defilers and Lurkers and Spider Mines and Dragoons were awesome in BW was because of BW's interface, not it's unit design. Adding BW units to SC2 will not make SC2 "more like BW" it will simply add more high dps aoe units. Defiler does 350 damage if I recall correctly, Infestor does 36... Yet Infestors are considered "overpowered"
Now when Infestors dealt 36 damage over 8 seconds instead of over 4 seconds, no one complained about its strength and people actually hated how weak it was. So it's not the fact that it holds unit in place, it's the fact that it deals too much damage in such a short time span. All 36 damage of it. If the infestor showed up and could deal 350 damage + had infinite mana? It would break the game.
It's not a unit design issue as much as people want to pretend it is.
I wonder what would happen if Blizzard decided to put the Lurker in HotS, however they changed the model of it to not resemble the Lurker, and changed it's name to something else. Would people be happy they have the "Lurker", or would they want the name and model changed out of pure nostalgia. (Assuming the model wasn't effected but splash any differently from BW)
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
A.) All units need perfect position. How often have we seen collosi dying to zerglings because they weren't positioned properly?
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
Imagine for a moment if there was a patch that said "Collosi costs half as much, does triple the damage, and doesn't need a range upgrade to be long range. Also, Vikings/Corruptors don't counter it but it moves slower"
It wasn't the unit design that made BW a good game (which I know it is), it was the synergies that made it a good game. Blind would be OP in SC2. Viking battles? Decided by medics. early tank pushes? Stopped by medics. chased away the medivac with troops in it? Blind it and suddenly they need to send it all the way back home to place/restore it because it'd be suicide to do drop play with a blind medivac.
Lockdown? It's like the opposite of snipe but only needs to hit once. If Lockdown was in SC2 mech place and protoss would be irrelevant.
Design wise, the BW units are not that great when put into a format with a smoother interface. They're not that great because design wise, the only things that made them balanced was a bad UI.
With a bad UI all the SC2 units would be just as "amazing" as BW units. Forcefields? Try casting that perfectly when you have to do it one sentry at a time. Snipe? Useless. Fungal? An aoe spell that deals less dps than a siege tank?
BW was good--don't think I don't see that. But stop pretending that it was unit design that made it "work."
Collosi don't need perfect position, they just need to be somewhat near a ball of stalkers/zealots/sentries. If they were so easy to snipe, then why would they give viper a pudge hook?
So basically, since SC2's interface supports spells that rely on being used in succession, then we should stick with those types of spells? There was this controversy with changing the middle mouse button so that it would act like a really fast left click, and many people considered that to be cheating. Granted, it wouldn't help with force fields, but I dislike the fact that you need to do multiple snipes or multiple infested terrans in the shortest time possible. It doesn't seem like a strategic decision at all, just a "battle" of whoever clicks faster.
Dark Swarm - A spell that makes zerg units invincible to all ranged unit attacks from terran, barring splash damage. Gained at hive tech. Good thing there's irradiate, and zerg has more than one expansion to pressure.
Force Field - A protoss spell that allows them 30 seconds of not being attacked when used on a ramp. Unlocked the moment the protoss cy core finishes.
All just a matter of perspective....
Toss staying on 1base? Not teching because he's spending gas on sentries? OMG, collect ladder points and nerd tears then
How does it actually play out?
Toss FE
Vs Terran Toss uses Forcefields to create temporary choke points because it takes 2-4 forcefields to block things off and if toss makes too many sentries their main andvantage (tech) gets lost.
Vs Zerg Toss uses properly timed forcefields to protect parts of a wall already present no different than a siege tank protects a supply depot wall in BW. Unless you think BW is shit, this is actually a good thing.
How Does Dark Swarm play out? Dark swarm is cast, all terran units in the area are countered. Now is it hard to Dark Swarm? Yes. But that's a UI issue, not a design one. Design wise its a spell that counters a race, much like the Dragoon counters an entire tech tree. Imagine if Barracks play in SC2 gets countered simply because a Cyber Core was built? Yup.... That's BW design right there.
Every Sentry added to a toss army early game is less tech and less DPS for the toss to fight with. The Protoss army actually becomes less powerful and more dependent on perfect play to be effective. Which, you know, a good thing.
What's my point? My point is that the games are VERY different. The reason Defilers and Lurkers and Spider Mines and Dragoons were awesome in BW was because of BW's interface, not it's unit design. Adding BW units to SC2 will not make SC2 "more like BW" it will simply add more high dps aoe units. Defiler does 350 damage if I recall correctly, Infestor does 36... Yet Infestors are considered "overpowered"
Now when Infestors dealt 36 damage over 8 seconds instead of over 4 seconds, no one complained about its strength and people actually hated how weak it was. So it's not the fact that it holds unit in place, it's the fact that it deals too much damage in such a short time span. All 36 damage of it. If the infestor showed up and could deal 350 damage + had infinite mana? It would break the game.
It's not a unit design issue as much as people want to pretend it is.
Dark Swarm doesn't kill units, so I don't know how they are "countered" in any way. If you are dumb enough to attack only one location in BW, and not do drops, and not irradiate defilers, or switch to a late game mech composition (Notice how many options there are), then yeah, your army is pretty much useless.
The point I'm trying to make is that for the most part, you could micro away or against things you faced in BW, and even things that you couldn't, they were in late game.
I made a post before about comparing the siege tank defense to forcefields, but basically, even with something like a siege expand, toss can still choose to do a bulldog (It actually works out perfectly, because you get the robo anyways for obs or even reavers if you so chose). With a forcefield, the tech is so early, the only strat that I've seen is a thor rush and that is as gimmicky as hell..
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
what? if you eat storms in sc2 its actually worse than bw because of unit clumping.
False it actually hurts more in bw for example templars storming your scv while you are away macroing your factory and returning to your natural to find it empty . Curse the gods !
I get that blizzard wants to put their own new "spin" on old units if they introduce them in order to show off their "creativity" or something. It's good to see that blizzard are finally bringing back mines, for it's just impossible to mech without them. However, I think making them from the factory is just really silly and to hard to balance. So why not just replace the Raven's auto-turret with the widow mines, instead of making them a separate unit from the factory? The raven needs to buff anyways, and this way you aren't adding to many units to the factory.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
Siege tank needs perfect positioning, you can't move it back. You need game awareness.
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
It's incredibly fun to land good dark swarms. Terrans are forced to micro their unit out of the swarm, while using irradiate on the defilers and avoiding destruction by scourges. Zerg has to land those dark swarms or his army is going to get decimated; you need perfect timings and positioning on them or they are completely worthless.
I'm no mastermind of sc bw, since I've only started it a couple of months ago, but these units add so much depth and micro to the game.
A.) All units need perfect position. How often have we seen collosi dying to zerglings because they weren't positioned properly?
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
Imagine for a moment if there was a patch that said "Collosi costs half as much, does triple the damage, and doesn't need a range upgrade to be long range. Also, Vikings/Corruptors don't counter it but it moves slower"
It wasn't the unit design that made BW a good game (which I know it is), it was the synergies that made it a good game. Blind would be OP in SC2. Viking battles? Decided by medics. early tank pushes? Stopped by medics. chased away the medivac with troops in it? Blind it and suddenly they need to send it all the way back home to place/restore it because it'd be suicide to do drop play with a blind medivac.
Lockdown? It's like the opposite of snipe but only needs to hit once. If Lockdown was in SC2 mech place and protoss would be irrelevant.
Design wise, the BW units are not that great when put into a format with a smoother interface. They're not that great because design wise, the only things that made them balanced was a bad UI.
With a bad UI all the SC2 units would be just as "amazing" as BW units. Forcefields? Try casting that perfectly when you have to do it one sentry at a time. Snipe? Useless. Fungal? An aoe spell that deals less dps than a siege tank?
BW was good--don't think I don't see that. But stop pretending that it was unit design that made it "work."
Collosi don't need perfect position, they just need to be somewhat near a ball of stalkers/zealots/sentries. If they were so easy to snipe, then why would they give viper a pudge hook?
So basically, since SC2's interface supports spells that rely on being used in succession, then we should stick with those types of spells? There was this controversy with changing the middle mouse button so that it would act like a really fast left click, and many people considered that to be cheating. Granted, it wouldn't help with force fields, but I dislike the fact that you need to do multiple snipes or multiple infested terrans in the shortest time possible. It doesn't seem like a strategic decision at all, just a "battle" of whoever clicks faster.
Dark Swarm - A spell that makes zerg units invincible to all ranged unit attacks from terran, barring splash damage. Gained at hive tech. Good thing there's irradiate, and zerg has more than one expansion to pressure.
Force Field - A protoss spell that allows them 30 seconds of not being attacked when used on a ramp. Unlocked the moment the protoss cy core finishes.
All just a matter of perspective....
Toss staying on 1base? Not teching because he's spending gas on sentries? OMG, collect ladder points and nerd tears then
How does it actually play out?
Toss FE
Vs Terran Toss uses Forcefields to create temporary choke points because it takes 2-4 forcefields to block things off and if toss makes too many sentries their main andvantage (tech) gets lost.
Vs Zerg Toss uses properly timed forcefields to protect parts of a wall already present no different than a siege tank protects a supply depot wall in BW. Unless you think BW is shit, this is actually a good thing.
How Does Dark Swarm play out? Dark swarm is cast, all terran units in the area are countered. Now is it hard to Dark Swarm? Yes. But that's a UI issue, not a design one. Design wise its a spell that counters a race, much like the Dragoon counters an entire tech tree. Imagine if Barracks play in SC2 gets countered simply because a Cyber Core was built? Yup.... That's BW design right there.
Every Sentry added to a toss army early game is less tech and less DPS for the toss to fight with. The Protoss army actually becomes less powerful and more dependent on perfect play to be effective. Which, you know, a good thing.
What's my point? My point is that the games are VERY different. The reason Defilers and Lurkers and Spider Mines and Dragoons were awesome in BW was because of BW's interface, not it's unit design. Adding BW units to SC2 will not make SC2 "more like BW" it will simply add more high dps aoe units. Defiler does 350 damage if I recall correctly, Infestor does 36... Yet Infestors are considered "overpowered"
Now when Infestors dealt 36 damage over 8 seconds instead of over 4 seconds, no one complained about its strength and people actually hated how weak it was. So it's not the fact that it holds unit in place, it's the fact that it deals too much damage in such a short time span. All 36 damage of it. If the infestor showed up and could deal 350 damage + had infinite mana? It would break the game.
It's not a unit design issue as much as people want to pretend it is.
Dark Swarm doesn't kill units, so I don't know how they are "countered" in any way. If you are dumb enough to attack only one location in BW, and not do drops, and not irradiate defilers, or switch to a late game mech composition (Notice how many options there are), then yeah, your army is pretty much useless.
The point I'm trying to make is that for the most part, you could micro away or against things you faced in BW, and even things that you couldn't, they were in late game.
I made a post before about comparing the siege tank defense to forcefields, but basically, even with something like a siege expand, toss can still choose to do a bulldog (It actually works out perfectly, because you get the robo anyways for obs or even reavers if you so chose). With a forcefield, the tech is so early, the only strat that I've seen is a thor rush and that is as gimmicky as hell..
Both Zerg and Terran have timing attacks after Fast expands that destroys the toss natural. Just watch marineking or stephano play. Forcefields are not the end all be all in the early game, and having so many sentries in the late is a liability.
Running your army into a tank line and running your army into an infestor line or sentry line etc.... all will get your army needlessly killed. But you can still "bulldog" it as you say; it happens all the time in tournament play. Its the reason Toss tries to FE off of sentries and they aren't guaranteed to hold the expansion/not lose probes. it's the reason you still see infestors sniped by Marauder packs. It's the reason you see blink stalkers beating marauders.
A terran has two "main" choices to deal with forcefields. If Terran FE, then medivac timings are good. If Terran 1 bases into a FE, Banshees and Medivacs deal with Forcefield play very easily.
@Sawamura
The reality is that in both games getting hit by storm hurts--a lot. One hurting more than the other is irrelevant because they both lead to protoss victories if storms land on large clumps of units for either game.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
On June 30 2012 09:36 Cuce wrote: forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I completely disagree with your statement here. I don't know how it could be more contrary to reality.
Forcefield doesn't 'let' toss micro. Forcefield makes it so Toss doesn't really have to micro. Also it DOES mean you hit f and click a bunch of times, because the spell is such a commodity. Maybe if it were larger and cost more it wouldn't be so game-breaking. Toss can micro against those things on their own, and removing or altering forcefield would greatly promote that.
yes, forcefield is a little bit of a silly spell, but try making gateway units usable versus anything without them.
As soon as a Terran has stim there is no way to beat it without great forcefields or much higher tech (collo/storm)
stalker/zealot vs roach/ling is SO cost inefficient for the protoss unless they already have a large unit advantage (where you would expect the army to win anyway)
hence, forcefields are needed for protoss to be able to survive against a large number of timings, timings that even with forcefield can still do massive damage to an early-mid game protoss.
On June 17 2012 01:09 Kazius wrote: There is a major difference. BW units had less of a micro-limiting aspect to them. The only true micro-limiting features were Stasis and the Queen's ensnare (one of the rarest abilities used by one of the rarest units used). This is a major difference to SC2, where forcefields, broodlings, fungal, vortex and now the swarm hosts and mineral-freeze thing. This has a lot to do with the new pathfinding elements and clumping nature of the game. Where in BW goons wouldn't clump no matter how hard you tried, now units just naturally blob. Lurkers absolutely demolish clumped up units, so instead, we get less damage but a micro limit. These are also necessary to prolong battles, as they tend to be over very quickly (Protoss, I'm looking at you).
There seems to be a difference in the game mechanics on a fundamental level requiring a different design attitude (or vice versa). The new units seem to be more in line with BW ideas to allow extra fluidity to the game.
Also Maelstrom. And Lockdown. (And critters )
irradiate, dark swarm, optic flare...
BW had a lot of spells that prevented the ability to micro. People were just okay with them because they were fucking hard to use.
Dark Swarm made ALL your marines irrelevant? At least it was hard to get it off between tanks/sci vessels killing defilers.
Irradiate was an aoe and caused your bio unit to start twitching like a madman? (I'm looking at you ultralisk!) It's okay, it's hard to deselect a sci vessel from your army and target fire the right targets while still moving your army forward.
Lockdown? Maelstorm? Unlike forcefields those spells LITERALLY STOPS A UNIT/S FROM DOING ANYTHING. Forcefields? Your units can still fight back. Fungal? Your units can still shoot back.
The problem isn't that spells in SC2 prevents micro any more than spells in BW prevents micro--the problem stems that most players "feel" that SC2 spells are so much easier to use that it doesn't feel impressive that the forcefields landed perfectly, it doesn't feel impressive that the fungals landed perfectly. (Which a fungal has to, land perfectly that is. Dark Swarm can "miss" and you can still use the cloud to position units better. Fungal *has* to land or it doesn't do anything.)
Let me put it this way.
When Boxer lockdowned a fleet of battlecruisers and finished them off with Wraiths, no one complained that lockdown was imba because everyone had tried using lockdown and it was hard enough to get 1-2 to land let alone 10+
Perfectly cast lockdowns swings battles 10x more than perfectly cast snipes. But since snipes are easier to cast--no one gives players credit for doing it.
No, I think spells in SC2 kill micro a lot more than you think. The thing about stasis/dark swarm was that they were all LATE GAME. By the time defilers/arbiters were out, you would have science vessels. And zerg would at least have scourge out when science vessels were out. Medic blind might not have been late game, but blind is pretty rare and you wouldn't use it in a normal game.
That last sentence I think is something that should be examined much more closely. Why wasn't Blind used in SC1? Several reasons actually.
First, it required research, thus increasing the base cost of getting the ability out there.
Second, it required a Medic. OK, but you can't just build a unit for one ability, unless that ability is going to be exceptionally powerful. So you would need to get some other use out of your Medics. And that would be healing Marines. Great... if you actually build (and upgrade) a Marine army. Which you don't in TvP and TvT. Even TvZ Marines can be optional if you want to go for pure Mech play. So in 2/3rds of your matchups, getting Blind out onto the field requires building a unit just for Blind and nothing else.
Medics do have other spells available of course, but those also require research.
Third... Blind sucks. Mass Blind might be worthwhile (but see point 2 for why you're not going to have mass Medics), but in small numbers, Blind is not something you're going to just throw out there. There are maybe 2-3 good targets for Blind: Observers, Overlords, Vessels, and maybe one or two other things. You'd never waste a Blind on a Marine or a Zealot.
Fourth, Blind doesn't combo with anything in the Terran army. The best use of targeted Blindness is for taking out detecters without killing them. That requires having a stealth unit that can actually take advantage of it. For Terrans, that's the Wraith and the Ghost. Neither of which are exactly among the most useful units in the SC1 Terran arsenel, are they? Which means that even if you were to use Blind, it would only be for some kind of gimmick strategy.
What is Blind most known for in Pro play? That one time someone (I think it was Boxer, but I'm not sure) blinded a bunch of Observers and called down a nuke. Not exactly standard play; it's a once-in-a-million kind of thing.
Contrast this to Forcefields.
FF requires no upgrade at all. It is the basic spell of Sentries. It has no additional cost or time; you get a Cybernetics Core, and bam: you have FF available.
Sentries can shoot. Admittedly this is not exactly the most useful talent they have. But it does give them some auxillary function. Plus they have Guardian Shields (also not requiring research), so they have other functions when not FFing.
FF is a powerful spell, especially early game. The units that negate them are higher-tier, so for a non-trivial portion of the game, you can basically create terrain wherever you want.
FF combos strongly with pretty much all of the Protoss army. It can split the enemy, thus making your Zealots take less damage (because FFs take up space) and allowing your Stalkers to attack fewer units. It makes Colossus-based armies quite strong as well. In short, it can help you better maximize the potential of your units.
Indeed, you might notice that this sort of thing is a common element in SC2: the early-game spellcaster. Ghosts, Sentries, and Queens. They all get useful spells for free at the time of production. Though the Queen isn't really an early-game Zerg spellcaster, since they're usually sitting in base spawning larva. But they can be useful defensively with their healing ability.
The main problem is providing this spell so early, without the ready availability of the tools used to counter it. Of course, the second problem is that the Protoss are now balanced around the ability, so Blizzard can't simply move it to later in the game and still have everything work. They'd have to buff Gateway units to compensate (since FFs are the only thing saving Protoss against certain rushes), which would cause other problems (coupling with WarpGate and such).
On June 30 2012 08:26 Nazza wrote: And I don't know, even with stasis/emp in the game, progamers didn't spend 15 seconds trying to dance units trying to EMP the arbiter/stasis the army. Even if the vessels/units get stasised, you had the other half of the army to micro, and the units in stasis aren't automatically dead.
If the rest of your army is dislodged from that position, then they're as good as dead. The main difference is that, to kill those units, your opponent has to give something up: time. They have to sit there around the stasis'd units and wait for it to run out. Which means they're not following you back to base.
It's more a question of tradeoffs than whether something is certainly going to die. That being said, it would be nice to see similar tradeoffs in SC2 abilities. Vortex is the closest we get to that, and even then, it's on a unit that's dog-slow and you can only build one of.
On June 29 2012 20:34 tdt wrote: Good thread with lots of good thoughts. I agree with the ppl who say it's about innovating. They are a software company after all where innovation is like thier middle name. For example,whether you like or dislike microsoft ribbons stuff like that is just going to happen with any of software company. otherwise it's kinda of hard to justify thier positions and reviewers would be like "BW 2.0 trolllolz". I think they are actually trying to slip BW in now though. Look at swarm host. Mines. etc
Everyone love to hate on collosus but why not look at cool things like blink stalkers? Why not look how much more succesful SC2 is in the West than BW ever was? Think positive.
If something like a blink stalker can be cool, why can't a colossus be as micro intensive? The point is to make something that CAN be micro'd, but DOES NOT have to be. You can't even animation cancel colossi, they are too mobile to warrant them using a warp prism to move around, and they are the major contributing factors to a death ball. I am all in favor of introducing new units, but if they are mostly in the flavor of, in the words of David Kim, "A move friendly", then hell no.
You can animation cancel colossi. And Colossi+Warp Prism is more rather unexplored.
SC2 Collosus--long range unit that can kite whose splash damage is more or less effective depending on which part of the front line it is shooting from.
BW Siege Tank--Long range unit that just sits there
Collosus--long or medium ranged unit that has multiple timings attack timings and tech switch possibilities that allows protoss as a race to out maneuver the opponent through proper tech progression and decision making
Reaver--low cost high dps splash unit that negates terran from playing 1/3 of their tech tree.
Collosus--unit with the most number of units that can kill it in the game, high cost, low hp, susceptible to both ground and air troops.
Defiler--counters the terran race, highest dps splash spell in the game, infinite mana.
How good a unit is seen depends on how people think about it.
If you don't know the reasons behind these units why they add so much skill to the game, you're deluded...
[...]
Reaver is incredibly hard to control and can break an entire army just by controlling him well. Combine this with epic shuttle micro and you've got an intense fun aspect of the game anyone can enjoy.
While simultaneously telling Terran players that they can never build Barracks units at all. People talk about how Immortals hard-counter SC2 Terran Mech play, but even they aren't as hard as Reavers hard-counter Marines.
Yes, it requires a bit of work to do it. But it isn't that hard to use Reavers well enough to slaughter Marines by the dozen. Reavers require skill, but they also have downsides. Let's not forget that in our zeal to have skilled units in the game.
On June 30 2012 11:34 Caihead wrote: Old blizzard didn't removed patrol micro / portions of animation cancel, new blizzard did. Old blizzard didn't removed unit glitching through builds/minerals, new blizzard did (and added more pathing blocking abilities).
This is revisionist history.
"Old Blizzard" didn't have a choice. Whether they wanted to or not, they couldn't remove those things, because they're too deeply coded into the engine. Fixing them would require rebuilding the pathfinding and AI systems almost from scratch. And you do not do that to a production game; that's not something you slip into a patch. Any attempt to fix it runs a very high risk of introducing dozens of new bugs.
The golden rule of patches is the Hypocratic Oath: Do No Harm. Don't do things that have a high probability of breaking the game.
"Glitching" through stuff is a by-product of workers "glitching" through units in order to mine. Making any changes to this system has the very real possibility of causing workers to get lodged in terrain or something by accident. And that's not something you should ever do to players of your game.
Yes, odds are good that Blizzard simply didn't care by that point (which is different from saying that they didn't want to. There's a difference between a thoughtful decision to let a game element stand and simple apathy). But if they wanted to change them, they couldn't. So the fact that they didn't is not evidence that they did not want to.
To put it another way, if "Old Blizzard" had made SC2 instead of WC3, odds are good that they would have taken those things out. Which they did for WC3, since it was built on a new engine that didn't have these elements.
On June 30 2012 11:34 Caihead wrote: Alot of these are to make the game more understandable and less obscure to new viewers, but the older method of adapting the meta game to the hard to land / difficult to manage features of the game added an extra sense of bewilderment and admiration for pulling off difficult stunts that SC2 doesn't. It's not nearly as impressive to watch units stream out of a zerg base in SC2 than it is in BW because in BW you knew that the player had to manage larvae and spawn at each base manually. It's alot less impressive to watch fungals land while an engagement occurs than plagues or dark swarms landing because you knew that the defiler had to cast consume and there was a 12 unit control limit and no smart casting.
If you say so. Personally, my enjoyment of a game is not based on how hard an element is for the players. It's based on the frequency an element is used.
FF's cutting off armies? It happens a lot. Storms dropped on armies? Seen that. Immortal/Prism micro? Now that's something new, something cool, something you don't see in most games. So if someone pulls it off, it's great. Similarly, clever use of Blink micro is still fairly rare.
It's all about seeing clear differences in play between lower-skilled and higher-skilled play. High skilled SC2 players build units faster than low skilled SC2 players, just like their SC1 counterparts. You see more units streaming out of a skilled SC2 player's base than an unskilled one. And so forth. As long as that stratification is there, the game is working fine.
On June 30 2012 16:40 Nazza wrote: Dark Swarm doesn't kill units, so I don't know how they are "countered" in any way. If you are dumb enough to attack only one location in BW, and not do drops, and not irradiate defilers, or switch to a late game mech composition (Notice how many options there are), then yeah, your army is pretty much useless.
With the exception of switching to Mech (and given TvZ trends, perhaps even that too), all of these are things SC2 Terrans can do too. Attacking multiple locations, drop harass, EMP replacing irradiate (and Infestors replacing Defilers), all of these have an SC2 analog.
On June 30 2012 17:07 Amlitzer wrote: I get that blizzard wants to put their own new "spin" on old units if they introduce them in order to show off their "creativity" or something. It's good to see that blizzard are finally bringing back mines, for it's just impossible to mech without them. However, I think making them from the factory is just really silly and to hard to balance. So why not just replace the Raven's auto-turret with the widow mines, instead of making them a separate unit from the factory? The raven needs to buff anyways, and this way you aren't adding to many units to the factory.
Well, consider that this means that a Terran player would have unlimited mines, depending on how much energy they have on their Ravens. Plus, it pushes mines back pretty far in the tech tree, forcing players to invest lots in StarPort tech in order to Mech. That's not exactly what Mech is all about.
This way, each mine has a specific cost value associated with it. That actually makes it easier to balance, not harder. Remember: SC1 Spider Mines had a cost associated as well (the cost of the Vulture). They can be produced quickly, double-pumped from a Reactor. This allows for certain early mine-based plays that wouldn't be possible with Raven-based production. Oh, and since each mine takes up food, there's a strict limit on how many can be around on the screen. Terrain can stretch a Terran's mine resources thin.
I agree that Ravens need a buff. But that's not the way to do it. It would be better to make Auto-turrets better and HSM cheaper and/or stronger.
On June 30 2012 09:36 Cuce wrote: forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I completely disagree with your statement here. I don't know how it could be more contrary to reality.
Forcefield doesn't 'let' toss micro. Forcefield makes it so Toss doesn't really have to micro. Also it DOES mean you hit f and click a bunch of times, because the spell is such a commodity. Maybe if it were larger and cost more it wouldn't be so game-breaking. Toss can micro against those things on their own, and removing or altering forcefield would greatly promote that.
yes, forcefield is a little bit of a silly spell, but try making gateway units usable versus anything without them.
As soon as a Terran has stim there is no way to beat it without great forcefields or much higher tech (collo/storm)
stalker/zealot vs roach/ling is SO cost inefficient for the protoss unless they already have a large unit advantage (where you would expect the army to win anyway)
hence, forcefields are needed for protoss to be able to survive against a large number of timings, timings that even with forcefield can still do massive damage to an early-mid game protoss.
That's an interesting point.
SC1 got away with this based on a combination of factors:
1: SC1 Marines have a range upgrade, from 4 to 5. Dragoons out-range them without this upgrade. So the Terran has to research this in addition to Stim. They're both researched at the same building, thus slowing down the push.
2: Dragoons have their own range upgrade, thus maintaining their range advantage.
3: Shield Batteries can be quickly summoned to help in micro.
4: Marine production is limited by the number of Barrackses in play.
5: The instant a Reaver hits the field, Marines die.
A lot of these are small things that are nevertheless important. Items 1-4 are all about allowing the Protoss to survive until item 5 hits, at which point the Terran loses if he hasn't already switched over to Mech.
Really though, I think #1 and #4 are probably the biggest. In SC2, a Terran can build two Barracks: one with a Tech Lab and one with a Reactor. They can research Stim while double-pumping Marines. So they can build more Marines faster than SC1 (MULEs also help in this regard). Coupled with the fact that they only need one upgrade instead of two, this means that they get Stimmed, 5-range Marines that much sooner. And more of them.
It's probably that early-game production speed that makes it almost impossible for Protoss to hold without FFing the ramp. Indeed, FF may have been introduced into the game as a specific reaction to early-game Reactor builds. One wonders if Guardian Shield (which was added to the game a year and a half after FF) alone might not have been enough. Or, to put it another way, maybe GS could be buffed to be enough to help the Protoss hold if FF didn't exist.
But for whatever reason, it's clear that the SC2 Protoss are designed to need FF to survive.
On June 30 2012 09:36 Cuce wrote: forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I completely disagree with your statement here. I don't know how it could be more contrary to reality.
Forcefield doesn't 'let' toss micro. Forcefield makes it so Toss doesn't really have to micro. Also it DOES mean you hit f and click a bunch of times, because the spell is such a commodity. Maybe if it were larger and cost more it wouldn't be so game-breaking. Toss can micro against those things on their own, and removing or altering forcefield would greatly promote that.
yes, forcefield is a little bit of a silly spell, but try making gateway units usable versus anything without them.
As soon as a Terran has stim there is no way to beat it without great forcefields or much higher tech (collo/storm)
stalker/zealot vs roach/ling is SO cost inefficient for the protoss unless they already have a large unit advantage (where you would expect the army to win anyway)
hence, forcefields are needed for protoss to be able to survive against a large number of timings, timings that even with forcefield can still do massive damage to an early-mid game protoss.
That's an interesting point.
SC1 got away with this based on a combination of factors:
1: SC1 Marines have a range upgrade, from 4 to 5. Dragoons out-range them without this upgrade. So the Terran has to research this in addition to Stim. They're both researched at the same building, thus slowing down the push.
2: Dragoons have their own range upgrade, thus maintaining their range advantage.
3: Shield Batteries can be quickly summoned to help in micro.
4: Marine production is limited by the number of Barrackses in play.
5: The instant a Reaver hits the field, Marines die.
A lot of these are small things that are nevertheless important. Items 1-4 are all about allowing the Protoss to survive until item 5 hits, at which point the Terran loses if he hasn't already switched over to Mech.
Really though, I think #1 and #4 are probably the biggest. In SC2, a Terran can build two Barracks: one with a Tech Lab and one with a Reactor. They can research Stim while double-pumping Marines. So they can build more Marines faster than SC1 (MULEs also help in this regard). Coupled with the fact that they only need one upgrade instead of two, this means that they get Stimmed, 5-range Marines that much sooner. And more of them.
It's probably that early-game production speed that makes it almost impossible for Protoss to hold without FFing the ramp. Indeed, FF may have been introduced into the game as a specific reaction to early-game Reactor builds. One wonders if Guardian Shield (which was added to the game a year and a half after FF) alone might not have been enough. Or, to put it another way, maybe GS could be buffed to be enough to help the Protoss hold if FF didn't exist.
But for whatever reason, it's clear that the SC2 Protoss are designed to need FF to survive.
I'm afraid i'm one of those people that hadn't actually heard of broodwar until SC2 came out, i stumbled into this thread essentially blind (bored this morning, and just had to share my thoughts on the sentry), but reading your points does exemplify why a lot of broodwar fans have problems with SC2. The dynamics of the game have changed, things that were
Maybe a buff to GS (not really sure what, but not a straight buff to amount of damage reduction) would eliminate the need for FF, or a buff to gateway units in general (although i don't think this is a good idea)
Oddly, one of the most complained about units (collosus) replaces the reaver, which it sounds like was even better vs marines than the collosus.
Ultimately it appears then game dynamics and mechanics have changed so much from BW that to re-introduce units would require large changes to those units, which would induce more whining about "how these units are just different units with the same name as our beloved BW units"
Flash and forgg disagrees with you biomech in TvP is still an unexplored territory in broodwar and to see it being pulled off makes it a wonderful experience to watch it work . Although when it horribly fails it will make the terran player seem a little dumb for not playing standard .
FORGG v Goojila(Forgg MnM eats dt and reaver for breakfast)
On June 30 2012 09:36 Cuce wrote: forcefield lets toss micro. I dont mean you hit f and click a bunch of times. it lets toss to micro agains double speed roaches lings mm balls. and it gives a reason for roach/ling/mm to micro againts toss.
I completely disagree with your statement here. I don't know how it could be more contrary to reality.
Forcefield doesn't 'let' toss micro. Forcefield makes it so Toss doesn't really have to micro. Also it DOES mean you hit f and click a bunch of times, because the spell is such a commodity. Maybe if it were larger and cost more it wouldn't be so game-breaking. Toss can micro against those things on their own, and removing or altering forcefield would greatly promote that.
yes, forcefield is a little bit of a silly spell, but try making gateway units usable versus anything without them.
As soon as a Terran has stim there is no way to beat it without great forcefields or much higher tech (collo/storm)
stalker/zealot vs roach/ling is SO cost inefficient for the protoss unless they already have a large unit advantage (where you would expect the army to win anyway)
hence, forcefields are needed for protoss to be able to survive against a large number of timings, timings that even with forcefield can still do massive damage to an early-mid game protoss.
That's an interesting point.
SC1 got away with this based on a combination of factors:
1: SC1 Marines have a range upgrade, from 4 to 5. Dragoons out-range them without this upgrade. So the Terran has to research this in addition to Stim. They're both researched at the same building, thus slowing down the push.
2: Dragoons have their own range upgrade, thus maintaining their range advantage.
3: Shield Batteries can be quickly summoned to help in micro.
4: Marine production is limited by the number of Barrackses in play.
5: The instant a Reaver hits the field, Marines die.
A lot of these are small things that are nevertheless important. Items 1-4 are all about allowing the Protoss to survive until item 5 hits, at which point the Terran loses if he hasn't already switched over to Mech.
Really though, I think #1 and #4 are probably the biggest. In SC2, a Terran can build two Barracks: one with a Tech Lab and one with a Reactor. They can research Stim while double-pumping Marines. So they can build more Marines faster than SC1 (MULEs also help in this regard). Coupled with the fact that they only need one upgrade instead of two, this means that they get Stimmed, 5-range Marines that much sooner. And more of them.
It's probably that early-game production speed that makes it almost impossible for Protoss to hold without FFing the ramp. Indeed, FF may have been introduced into the game as a specific reaction to early-game Reactor builds. One wonders if Guardian Shield (which was added to the game a year and a half after FF) alone might not have been enough. Or, to put it another way, maybe GS could be buffed to be enough to help the Protoss hold if FF didn't exist.
But for whatever reason, it's clear that the SC2 Protoss are designed to need FF to survive.
M&M was actually pretty good vs pure gateway units, it's just that Protosses could blindly open Dts or Reavers. Stim in BW did 50% more increase in fire rate, and Marines took 4 shots from a goon to get killed. Medics would heal pretty quickly too, and goons are relatively slow with their fire rate. The thing about M&M/tank is that it is extremely mid-game focused. There is almost no transition, and you have to do damage/win the game with the timing attack before templar/reaver tech.
Flash and forgg disagrees with you biomech in TvP is still an unexplored territory in broodwar and to see it being pulled off makes it a wonderful experience to watch it work . Although when it horribly fails it will make the terran player seem a little dumb for not playing standard .
If UpMagic was still playing, then who knows? Bio might have become more popular today. I saw a couple of high level amateurs play some TvP, Hiya did some rax timings vs Anytime as well...
I think the HSM is a lot like Spawn Broodling on BW queens right now. The energy cost is quite steep, and you have a unit that can readily counter it that is being made anyways (Science Vessel/High Templar). You end up saving all those energy on those queens, and *boom* EMP shockwave... you might as well have made mutas or mass hydras.
Also range 6 for a spell is really small. Not to mention, to get the most out of this spell, you want to target the center of a mass of units.... That's just my 2 cents.
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
what? if you eat storms in sc2 its actually worse than bw because of unit clumping.
Nope in BW, you don't have that unlimited Units Selection therefore you have to individually drag one group of units out of the Storm radius whereas in SC2, you can drag the entire army out of it.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
and lol what? You are confusing everyone with you argument of Arbiter plays with Early Game since you won't get it until perhaps the 10 minutes mark.
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
but there is no point of speaking about relatives. bw units don't clump (you might hit 4 units with storm in bw), getting storm off isn't that easy, and terran doesn't have siege tanks or spider mines that can obliterate protoss that does not engage correctly.
If you eat a full storm as terran in sc2, and you didn't do dmg, that's it. He is going to a-move rest of his army into your base and there is no tank fire or spider mines to slow them down, you're going to die.
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
but there is no point of speaking about relatives. bw units don't clump, getting storm off isn't that easy, and terran doesn't have siege tanks or spider mines that can obliterate protoss that does not engage correctly.
If you eat a full storm as terran, and you didn't do dmg before hand, that's it. He is going to a-move rest of his army into your base and there is no tank fire or spider mines to slow them down, you're going to die
Looks like someone isn't familiar with the way how BW units interacts with each other. In SC2, the unit pathing is very clean and crisp. So when you move couple of units to a specific location, they don't exactly collides with each other and glitch. In BW, once you command a few units to a certain placement, the AI bugs out and units will attempt to collides with each other. And that's when genuine clumping happens especially with mass Hydralisks groups. So that put emphasis on individual unit micro.
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
but there is no point of speaking about relatives. bw units don't clump, getting storm off isn't that easy, and terran doesn't have siege tanks or spider mines that can obliterate protoss that does not engage correctly.
If you eat a full storm as terran, and you didn't do dmg before hand, that's it. He is going to a-move rest of his army into your base and there is no tank fire or spider mines to slow them down, you're going to die
Looks like someone isn't familiar with the way how BW units interacts with each other. In SC2, the unit pathing is very clean and crisp. So when you move couple of units to a specific location, they don't exactly collides with each other and glitch. In BW, once you command a few units to a certain placement, the AI bugs out and units will attempt to collides with each other. And that's when genuine clumping happens especially with mass Hydralisks groups. So that put emphasis on individual unit micro.
I know broodwar units get stuck alot, especially dragoons, but that doesn't change a thing to what I said. Those "clumping" problems are annoying but my points still stands as they are outliers and rarely do you get a massive storms that hit a ton of units outside of workers
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
but there is no point of speaking about relatives. bw units don't clump (you might hit 4 units with storm in bw), getting storm off isn't that easy, and terran doesn't have siege tanks or spider mines that can obliterate protoss that does not engage correctly.
If you eat a full storm as terran in sc2, and you didn't do dmg, that's it. He is going to a-move rest of his army into your base and there is no tank fire or spider mines to slow them down, you're going to die.
bw units do clump especially when you leave them alone in a control group and in some cases they will form some kind of a ball although this can be remedied quickly by clicking to your right or left which the units will split from the ball formation and form little spacing between the units . It's the same thing in brood war when your units are in clump formation and there are storms being casted all on top of your siege tanks you can say good bye to them as seen in the game of jangbi v nada .
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
but there is no point of speaking about relatives. bw units don't clump (you might hit 4 units with storm in bw), getting storm off isn't that easy, and terran doesn't have siege tanks or spider mines that can obliterate protoss that does not engage correctly.
If you eat a full storm as terran in sc2, and you didn't do dmg, that's it. He is going to a-move rest of his army into your base and there is no tank fire or spider mines to slow them down, you're going to die.
bw units do clump especially when you leave them alone in a control group and in some cases they will form some kind of a ball although this can be remedied quickly by clicking to your right or left which the units will split from the ball formation and form little spacing between the units . It's the same thing in brood war when your units are in clump formation and there are storms being casted all on top of your siege tanks you can say good bye to them as seen in the game of jangbi v nada .
yes, lots of storm, but most storms still only hit 4 units. I am not saying broodwar units don't clump, but they are nowhere near the level of sc2
it is quite possible to catch your entire army with just 2 storms in sc2. I would argue storm is much more dangerous in sc2 not only due to unit clumping, but you don't have any zone controls (tanks or spider mines) to slow down protoss if you do get in a bad situation
you get bad stormed in sc2? you're dead. Part of it could also due to mech being terrible against protoss and bio just clump up even tighter
B.) Units needing more clicking does not counteract their bad design. The Reaver is overpowered--but since it's hard to click things in the game, it's "balanced." But realistically, it's an artificial balance. The unit itself is not balanced. If the reaver was put into SC2 people would want it ripped immediately. A colosus that has no easy counter that deals triple the damage? Awful design. Why is it okay? Because it's hard to click things in BW. Because you had to fight the UI in BW. If it was the Collosi instead of the reaver in BW no one would complain about imba collosi. Because the two games are fundamentally different from each other.
I am rather confused on this point. How are things harder to click on in BW? Clicking didn't change. But moving shot is not artificial balance nor is something that is hard to use artificial balance. That's actually part of the balance process. If there was a button for auto split marines versus banelings, or a button for auto kite with marines and marauders, you can guarantee m&m would be nerfed to hell. No overkill on tanks= tanks have less damage. Smart casting = storms and emp's are a shadow of their BW counterparts.
Providing opportunities for the faster players to excel is a very good thing. It provides true 'wow' moments when a pro-player picks apart a base with a shuttle-reaver combo when a lowly D- would get only get a couple shots and then have to run away.
pretty sure I just gg instantly if my whole army gets stormed before or during engagemen
Relatively speaking they do sufficient damage. But in absolute terms SC2 spells aren't as impressive. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but a good example is storming (unmicroed) muta or workers. BW, I think you're left with 8 health and 2 storms will clean out a worker line. SC2 mutas still have 1/3 health and it takes 3-4 storms to kill a worker line.
but there is no point of speaking about relatives. bw units don't clump (you might hit 4 units with storm in bw), getting storm off isn't that easy, and terran doesn't have siege tanks or spider mines that can obliterate protoss that does not engage correctly.
If you eat a full storm as terran in sc2, and you didn't do dmg, that's it. He is going to a-move rest of his army into your base and there is no tank fire or spider mines to slow them down, you're going to die.
bw units do clump especially when you leave them alone in a control group and in some cases they will form some kind of a ball although this can be remedied quickly by clicking to your right or left which the units will split from the ball formation and form little spacing between the units . It's the same thing in brood war when your units are in clump formation and there are storms being casted all on top of your siege tanks you can say good bye to them as seen in the game of jangbi v nada .
yes, lots of storm, but most storms still only hit 4 units. I am not saying broodwar units don't clump, but they are nowhere near the level of sc2
it is quite possible to catch your entire army with just 2 storms in sc2. I would argue storm is much more dangerous in sc2 not only due to unit clumping, but you don't have any zone controls (tanks or spider mines) to slow down protoss if you do get in a bad situation
you get bad stormed in sc2? you're dead
Protoss players in broodwar having bad storms versus a zerg he is also considered dead man on a limited time . Well it's true that storms are much more effective in sc2 because of smart casting compared to bw where you have manually press T and mouse over to your target to unleash the spell . Which explains why it is more dangerous against *bio units in sc2 .
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
Brood war storms hit 8 of my hydralisks or more. How is that 4 units? Not to mention you've got to dodge them pre-emptively because if you let them hit, that's 8 dead hydralisks there. (Talking about large army battles, if you only have 8, you can still save them from the storms).
Brood war storms their dps is a lot higher, 1 storm actually kills all your drones.
Wow, these last few pages have been facepalm worthy at times. I mean if people see stuff like mbs, smart ai, everything on one hotkey as good things, it just shows how far apart we are.
If all you want to do is control one thing all game and hit spells, you might as well play a moba. Because that is essentially every engagement in Sctoo, deathball vs deathball. Whoever hits the right spells in a 5 second period wins the battle and ultimately the game.
Me? I don't want to see every new game become homogenized, just so it can appeal to casuals, who whine and complain about a difficult ui, just so they get shiny easy to use one. Pretty soon we'll all only be playing the same game, just with a different title.
That isn't where we're headed, it's where we're right now. It's too difficult - just remove it, it's op - nerf the hell out if it so no one uses it any more.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
On July 01 2012 01:02 1A1A1A wrote: Wow, these last few pages have been facepalm worthy at times. I mean if people see stuff like mbs, smart ai, everything on one hotkey as good things, it just shows how far apart we are.
If all you want to do is control one thing all game and hit spells, you might as well play a moba. Because that is essentially every engagement in Sctoo, deathball vs deathball. Whoever hits the right spells in a 5 second period wins the battle and ultimately the game.
Me? I don't want to see every new game become homogenized, just so it can appeal to casuals, who whine and complain about a difficult ui, just so they get shiny easy to use one. Pretty soon we'll all only be playing the same game, just with a different title.
That isn't where we're headed, it's where we're right now. It's too difficult - just remove it, it's op - nerf the hell out if it so no one uses it any more.
If it's what people want then let them have it.
The potential to put all units on one hotkey does not mean that you should put all units on one hotkey.
The potential to cast all spells through one control group does not predicate that one should.
BW and SC2 have different UI. Some people like SC2 UI, some people like Broodwar UI. One is not better than the other because both are very very different from each other. BW UI was not the hardest UI of its time and in fact it was an easier UI than the games previous to it. Now roles have reversed and it is now considered the harder UI while newer games have the easier UI.
The difficulty of the UI is arbitrary and people liking one over the other is also arbitrary.
The UI of BW allowed for BW units to be "balanced" because the units were harder to use. If those units were ported to SC2 people would hate them (apart from nostalgia). Because once the BW units are put in an a more streamlined UI, it becomes apparent that they are badly designed units that are a bit overpowered.
There is a reason smartshot siege tanks take up more supply, cost more, and have less damage (even before the damage nerf) Because BW siege tanks would be broken in SC2.
The games are different.
Now, you enjoying the BW UI is a personal preference much like me liking a BLT sandwhich is a personal preference. It isn't better or worse than the SC2 UI.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
what? if you eat storms in sc2 its actually worse than bw because of unit clumping.
False it actually hurts more in bw for example templars storming your scv while you are away macroing your factory and returning to your natural to find it empty . Curse the gods !
oh okay losing 100 food in army < 20 food in scvs.. i can't really agree with you on that haha
Flash and forgg disagrees with you biomech in TvP is still an unexplored territory in broodwar and to see it being pulled off makes it a wonderful experience to watch it work . Although when it horribly fails it will make the terran player seem a little dumb for not playing standard .
While those are interesting games, let's face facts here: Horang2 is playing Flash, who has been known to kill people with his brain.
Also, while it is "unexplored," it's not like people haven't been trying to make Bio work vs. Protoss since forever. I'm sure many Terrans have taken practice time out to see if they can finagle a way to make it work. The fact that it's been 12 years and the most you can point to is a couple of games suggests that it's probably not going to happen. At best, it'll be some interesting non-standard play to keep the opponent Protoss's from getting comfortable.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
What bothers me with Starcraft 2 is that it's usual that player just grabs your army, hotkeys it to 1, moves it towards enemy and collects victory.
Unlike in Brood War it wasn't possible to just grab all your stuff and move to the enemy, which I think made BW much more exciting.
By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
I dont understand why people are so focused on the AI pathing. I don't believe that is a problem at all. watch a pro terran play first person, they will hotkey a single number to 15 barracks. "pro macro" has come down to pressing one hotkey and spamming the unit hotkeys you want. you dont even have to look away from your army or change screens. zerg do the same with hatches or sometimes they just hotkey the larva. protoss at least have to look at a pylon to macro, but usually the pylon is right in the battle so it's an instant army bulk up. and warpgates have a hoykey built right into the game.
as i said earlier i hate smart casting. Bowder always talks about unit clumping as to why sc2 spells are weaker, that is so not the issue man. I want someone to just once bring up smart casting to him.
those are my beefs with sc2, I still pay to watch gsl but i dont find the games as interesting. All the obersver options are cool thought...
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Rokoz I think Blizzard is trying to do that with their new units. Keep in mind that what ultimately controls the various battles, are the various maps that these engagements take place on. This does in no way mean I do not believe our present maps are imbalanced. It simply means that I believe neither the units or the UI are the only things that can be balanced/made more spectator friendly.
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts.
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:
On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:
On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts.
Never said that you didn't like the way Storm/Emp works. "I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game." Yeah 'about that. That IS complaining that one storm can become the game changer elements. Aka wanting to make the game easier. Looks like you can definitely learn a lesson or two about misreading posts.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
What is that even supposed to mean? It's not even an argument, you're just making arbitrary statements about SC2 that are incorrect.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:
On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:
On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts.
Never said that you didn't like the way Storm/Emp works. "I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game." Yeah 'about that. That IS complaining that one storm can become the game changer elements. Aka wanting to make the game easier. Looks like you can definitely learn a lesson or two about misreading posts.
Just two pages ago you stated storms don't have as big of an impact, implying they're ineffectual. You've been thoroughly corrected and you've now redirected that discussion into accusations of complaint, as if stating facts should mean you're whining. Get over yourself. Lol.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:
On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:
On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
What is that even supposed to mean? It's not even an argument, you're just making arbitrary statements about SC2 that are incorrect.
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game.
Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy.
He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1.
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me.
The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing)
Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics.
Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play.
And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:
On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:
On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:
On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:
On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote: ^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact.
Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss.
And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it.
Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are.
You just don't get it do you? lol
I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts.
Never said that you didn't like the way Storm/Emp works. "I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game." Yeah 'about that. That IS complaining that one storm can become the game changer elements. Aka wanting to make the game easier. Looks like you can definitely learn a lesson or two about misreading posts.
Just a page ago you stated that storms don't do much in SC2 (as opposed to BW). You've been thoroughly corrected and you've now redirected that discussion into accusations of complaint, as if stating facts should mean you're complaining. Get over yourself. Lol.
1. Tell me what are you doing? Making arbitrary statements about my posts that are incorrect. Talk about being a hypocrite. I gave many reasoning behind my post. Why don't you support yourself with evidence when challenging someone.
2. And how have I been corrected if I have repeatedly proved that my point stands? Read it over.
1. In both games storms are very strong, but in BW storms per se are a little bit stronger because of: (a) all BW core units of all races take considerable damage (most of them die if kept under full effect) from a storm, while in SC2 roaches can tank them well, just like P units too; (b) in BW, casting blanket storms required an insane amount of mechanical skill, while in SC2 you can queue them up easily. For this reason I guess they nerfed the storm damage in SC2. (c) BW pathing and unit responsiveness can screw up you when you are trying to dodge storms, while in SC2 units respond very well to the player's commands and pathing is really well coded.
2. SC2 doesn't need old units, SC2 needs units with better design. Are some of the old units designs fit for SC2? If yes, there should be no reluctancy into adding them back. If not, just add new units with good design.
3. Entomb is just plain dumb.
4. The Tempest looks inferior to the Carrier design-wise.
And now my personal opinion:
1. I don't like the Locusts mechanics. Spamming units feels annoying and pollutes the playfield. In this particular case I think they should give the Swarm Host some other kind of attack that doesn't fucking spam new units. It's different from the Carrier's interceptor, since the interceptor doesn't block units path.
2. That Viper grab skill doesn't belong to the SC gameplay style. Fits DotA and LoL, doesn't fit SC.
3. I hope I misunderstood the auto-targeting goliath-like new Terran unit, because if I think it is what it is, then I believe Blizzard has no idea what Starcraft skillset is. (Mechanics + Strategy + Tactics + Metagame)
On July 01 2012 06:04 GGYO111 wrote: Btw people, calling something arbitrary is a cop out.
I think being a an NFL quarterback is 100x harder and 100x more impressive a feat than being a grandmaster in chess. But I still respect a chess grandmaster more than I respect an NFL quarterback--because I arbitrarily like Chess more than I like the NFL.
I think baking bread is more difficult than frying bacon--but I still prefer bacon over bread.
It's arbitrary which one you like better. Harder does not equal better.
1. In both games storms are very strong, but in BW storms per se are a little bit stronger because of: (a) all BW core units of all races take considerable damage (most of them die if kept under full effect) from a storm, while in SC2 roaches can tank them well, just like P units too; (b) in BW, casting blanket storms required an insane amount of mechanical skill, while in SC2 you can queue them up easily. For this reason I guess they nerfed the storm damage in SC2. (c) BW pathing and unit responsiveness can screw up you when you are trying to dodge storms, while in SC2 units respond very well to the player's commands and pathing is really well coded.
2. SC2 doesn't need old units, SC2 needs units with better design. Are some of the old units designs fit for SC2? If yes, there should be no reluctancy into adding them back. If not, just add new units with good design.
3. Entomb is just plain dumb.
4. The Tempest looks inferior to the Carrier design-wise.
And now my personal opinion:
1. I don't like the Locusts mechanics. Spamming units feels annoying and pollutes the playfield. In this particular case I think they should give the Swarm Host some other kind of attack that doesn't fucking spam new units. It's different from the Carrier's interceptor, since the interceptor doesn't block units path.
2. That Viper grab skill doesn't belong to the SC gameplay style. Fits DotA and LoL, doesn't fit SC.
3. I hope I misunderstood the auto-targeting goliath-like new Terran unit, because if I think it is what it is, then I believe Blizzard has no idea what Starcraft skillset is. (Mechanics + Strategy + Tactics + Metagame)
Almost all of your Facts are personal opinions (with exception of maybe 1) so I don't know why you made a separate list for them lol.
I'm just throwing in my 2 cents to get lost in the mess of pages, but I'm reasonably upset that they would rather put in an underground broodlord rather than try to work the lurker back in. It's wildly more original, interesting and fun than the swarm host.
On July 01 2012 06:27 Tachion wrote: I'm just throwing in my 2 cents to get lost in the mess of pages, but I'm reasonably upset that they would rather put in an underground broodlord rather than try to work the lurker back in. It's wildly more original, interesting and fun than the swarm host.
They tried to put in the Lurker in WoL, but since it didn't fit in with their design concept with Zerg and created too many overlaps.
They wanted little to no AA at hatch tech--which meant Hydras get put into Lair tech.
They didn't want sideways tech advancement--so lurkers had to be at Hive tech.
Lurkers at Hive tech turns out to be useless because Lurkers are usually defensive map control units used to delay until you get to hive tech--which you're already in if you had Lurkers.
Could they have removed Queen AA and put Hydras at Tier 1 and Lurkers at lair tech along with buffed roaches? Yes. Why didn't they? I don't know.
On July 01 2012 06:23 fabiano wrote: Hm, maybe 4 is personal.
1, 2 and 3 are definitely facts. Especially 3.
They're all opinions. I do believe they're true--but they're in no way "facts" in the strictest sense of the word.
EDIT:
The Tempest comment really hits close to home for me especially, because I've been telling my friends all along that the best way to make the carrier make sense is if it had double or triple the range it has now because that's the point of a fucking carrier in real life--it's a battle ship that shoots airplanes at the enemy. Blizzard finally sees it and instead they put it on a new unit instead of simply having a 22 range carrier?
I mean really now, 22 range carrier where the interceptors are independant from the carrier. They launch and come back when they are done (not when the carrier moves).
1. In both games storms are very strong, but in BW storms per se are a little bit stronger because of: (a) all BW core units of all races take considerable damage (most of them die if kept under full effect) from a storm, while in SC2 roaches can tank them well, just like P units too; (b) in BW, casting blanket storms required an insane amount of mechanical skill, while in SC2 you can queue them up easily. For this reason I guess they nerfed the storm damage in SC2. (c) BW pathing and unit responsiveness can screw up you when you are trying to dodge storms, while in SC2 units respond very well to the player's commands and pathing is really well coded.
They nerfed the storm damage but it's sorta made up for by the fact it'll hit 2x as many units than it did in BW due to clumping. If anything it probably does more total damage per storm. (I'm assuming without math) The units it's used against will still die in 1 full storm minus marauders/mutalisks.
Also roaches/protoss units pretty much the last units to open storm for. Kinda irrelevant.
Funny how people argue that abilities should do more damage and then go on to the next thread to tell how EMP is op and fungal should get nerfed :D.
On to the topic itself. I guess they have to create new units because if they don't, they will get owned by trolls with their "this is just a copy of BW with shiny graphics".
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Nothing wrong with 12 unit control group. However, I would try first search for different methods to make army control play more important role without making unit cap on control groups. IMO Terran is currently good example how effective army control should be rewarded, Blizzard should try to find ways to make army control count more for Zerg and Protoss.
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
name one from recent interviews, gogo.
forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote: On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
name one from recent interviews, gogo.
forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote: On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
name one from recent interviews, gogo.
forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
That still doesn't say that the game is easy. Also you are talking about the god now. He had the same going on in BW.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
True I came to this conclusion. However, all conclusions are Only drawn by ONE person with other persons acknowledging those conclusions. Seeing as how a previous post wrote out both perspectives and made the logical argument that each is a vice. Therefore, the preference of UI is strictly based on your opinion and not an actual IsSuE. There was then no reply posts and so I believe the matter settled. Unless you disagree, then by all means tell me What your opinion is.
On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote: On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
name one from recent interviews, gogo.
forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
That still doesn't say that the game is easy. Also you are talking about the god now. He had the same going on in BW.
I remember Morrow posting in a thread somewhere that there's a lot of things he wants to be able to do in SC2 but that it's just too hard.
Although I'll give you a bone that Flash supposedly said that Nestea was a genius but just didn't have the best mechanics.
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
I know it wont change but I will never sotp advocating for a better game. Detrimental? care to expand on why you say that? my opinion is the exact opposite, macroing from one hotkey is easier but that does not make it better. Just like non-MBS is harder but that is not the primary reason I think it is better.
D3 is an rpg/hack and slash SC2 is supposed to set two people heads up better person wins
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way.
The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI.
It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
As the question of old BW features has been raised, I would like to add few thoughts.
I want you to understand that I like playing SC2 but can`t get rid of the thougth that the game is not perfect, that it is missing some very important element. And it naturally happens so that many people including me are trying to find the answer in BW, SC2`s predessesor, which became epic for some reason. You see? If SC2 was perfect, it would have become the primary computer game. I want SC2 to become a perfect game.
I do agree that BW is what it is now because of the programming limitations of the late 90s, but some of these BW features are actually really nice and I would even say that these features are exactly what made BW so epic.
I would like to give a very simple comparison - people invented bicycle, while there were no cars, that are actually faster, bigger, coller etc. Then why do so many people across the globe like to ride bicycles today? I think because it is really joyful to mechanically and routinely push the bicycle forward. A "player" needs not only to drive the bicycle in the right way, he also has to obtain mechanical strength to do it. Posessing and accumulating this mechanical strength is joyful. Observing professional gamers show their enormous strength is amazing.
Maybe, these thing are exactly what the game is lacking. Personally I find it very interesting to feel the difficulty of the following things: - no automine, every player has to send workers to minaral line - and these routine, these mechanical actions are joyful because you can feel how income increases each time you choose a probe and send it to mine. 3 base saturaiton is already an accomplishment. - army production without multiple buildngs selection, when your actions have direct impact on the size of the army. You see and feel how clicking turns into visible force. In SC2 zerg can simply push two buttons to make a 100 limit army. In BW reaching 100 limit is something to be respected while in SC2 having 200 limit means nothing. - army movement with 12 max control groups - it made me respect players capable of moving huge armies of zergs, terrans and protosses across the map. In SC2 most of the players have their entire army in 1! control group - this is the cause of stupid deathballs and a-click destruction which i hate. I heard Jaedong could use buttons from 1 to 0 to bind the hatcheries in order to produce the army and then, when army popped out from the eggs, he reprogrammed all the buttons from 1 to 0 to control the whole army just to send into the fight. Then, Jaedong returns back to hatcheries to bind them again. Isn`t it fantastic? It is exactly what makes me open my mouth while watching pros play. - non-smart casting, the same as mentioned above - ability to cast storms in BW was something to be respected. In SC2 a guy can dig his nose with one hand and therefore land stupidly strong storms onto the opponent`s army.
On June 17 2012 01:22 NukeD wrote: If you were Dustin Browder what would you do?
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try.
If you use this analogy, Dusten Browder would make basketball 2 a game where the only way to score was by dunking.
On June 17 2012 01:22 NukeD wrote: If you were Dustin Browder what would you do?
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try.
If you use this analogy, Dusten Browder would make basketball 2 a game where the only way to score was by dunking.
Basketball has had many Justin Browders changing it throughout its long history. Many of its rules today were not the rules of when it first got popular. Realistically, SC2's Justin Browder would keep all the rules the same but raise the height of the net by another 4-6 feet to decrease the effectiveness of dunks and to enforce short range lay-ups which would mean that the game play would become more team focused and less star player focused as the game would stop being about momentum monsters charging the net and become more akin to Michael Jordan fade-away lay ups.
EDIT: In case you don't know much about basketball, lay ups are the easy to perform and easy to counter shots that ALL basketball and non-basketball players use. It literally is the act of being close enough to the basket for you to toss the ball in. Dunks are hard to stop since you have a 180-200+ human being charging at you. Basketball would become a more technical game dependent on zone control and clearing lanes of play instead of what we currently have where Le Bron or Shaq goes terminal velocity at the rim with no one to stop them. Well shaq doesn't need much velocity, but the same philosophy applies.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
I like it when the first posts (with a sound exception) are the ones that make the most sense.
On June 17 2012 01:22 NukeD wrote: If you were Dustin Browder what would you do?
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try.
If you use this analogy, Dusten Browder would make basketball 2 a game where the only way to score was by dunking.
You obviously don't know anything about basket-ball. Bad comparison I guess.
Lots of people ride bikes because it's cheaper or allows you some access that cars do not. They also have less restrictions on them. Driving the fastest you possibly humanely can on a bike will not give you a ticket the same way driving a car that way does. Bikes are also easier to park, does not need insurance, cheaper (over time) than a gym membership, etc...
If people enjoyed the mechanical motions they would stick with running (which some people do, but rarely as a means of transport and more as an exercise regime)
On July 01 2012 19:57 serojananda wrote: - army production without multiple buildngs selection, when your actions have direct impact on the size of the army. You see and feel how clicking turns into visible force. In SC2 zerg can simply push two buttons to make a 100 limit army. In BW reaching 100 limit is something to be respected while in SC2 having 200 limit means nothing.
This made me wonder what raising the supply cap to 300-400 would do to the game. Bigger armies would make large deathball engagements less effective, since a major part of your army would get stuck behind. The result should be more action across the map and a greater need for workers thus more mining bases that can be threatened. The armies wouldn't look so wimpy anymore and naturally spread out despite clumping. More opportunities for micro as well.
In essence more action, greater skillcap. Are there any custom maps like this?
On July 01 2012 19:57 serojananda wrote: - army production without multiple buildngs selection, when your actions have direct impact on the size of the army. You see and feel how clicking turns into visible force. In SC2 zerg can simply push two buttons to make a 100 limit army. In BW reaching 100 limit is something to be respected while in SC2 having 200 limit means nothing.
This made me wonder what raising the supply cap to 300-400 would do to the game. Bigger armies would make large deathball engagements less effective, since a major part of your army would get stuck behind. The result should be more action across the map and a greater need for workers thus more mining bases that can be threatened. The armies wouldn't look so wimpy anymore and naturally spread out despite clumping. More opportunities for micro as well.
In essence more action, greater skillcap. Are there any custom maps like this?
We could also do what BW did and zoom in the screen more so that we literally see less of the game. Large armies will fill up the screen because there will be less screen.
Another thing that BW did was have smaller maps than SC2. BW maps were very small in comparison to SC2 maps. That would also make it so that SC2 armies "fill the map more."
On July 02 2012 02:58 blubbdavid wrote: ^I don't know, BW maps don't strike me as very small...
256x256 is the biggest they get--as in that is the physical cap. Which is about the size of Xel' Naga.
It's also physically harder to get around a BW map.
For example, to get from your natural to the watchtower on Xel'Naga you just click through the minimap.
In BW you'd box click about 10~ times to give the command to move to the Watchtower, you'd then box click another 10~ times to grab random stragglers glitching away from your army, then you'd box click a few more times as random units get stuck on doodads/each other in order for your army to get from the natural to the watchtower.
The shift+click command was also less trustworthy so if you wanted to "make an easy runby through the back" you'd have to command the troops to go to the front of the entrance, then when they get there to move halfway through the entrance, then when they get there you tell them to move behind the tall grass, then when they get there you begin your attack. In SC2 you just click on the corner, then shift A-Move to the natural, then you forget about them.
When it is physically more difficult to get from point A to point B the maps will feel much bigger.
EDIT I put 126x128 (Big Game Hunters) forgetting 256x256 was biggest
SC2 maps are bigger. And with the Galaxy editor--since you can shrink everything, its possible to have a 256x256 map with everything at half scale (excluding ramps I guess?) so it would imitate a 500x500 map.
Wasn't it that the community wanted bigger BW like maps so Blizz made Taldarim Altar? I don't know if the 128x128 in SC2 is comparable to BW. Don't forget that many SC2 maps have fluff around the edge, basically unpassable terrain, whereas in BW the only unusable space are ridges. Maybe a mapmaker could bring some light into this.
On July 02 2012 03:43 blubbdavid wrote: Wasn't it that the community wanted bigger BW like maps so Blizz made Taldarim Altar? I don't know if the 128x128 in SC2 is comparable to BW. Don't forget that many SC2 maps have fluff around the edge, basically unpassable terrain, whereas in BW the only unusable space are ridges. Maybe a mapmaker could bring some light into this.
The smallest SC2 map is steps of war at a measly 124x124 vs most BW maps of 128x128 even accounting "inaccessible terrain" which, for the most part, air units still have access to, SC2 maps would still be larger that BW maps.
It doesn't feel bigger of course. Since in the end its about the difficulty of the action more so than the math of the action that determines things like "feeling."
For example, taking an elevator to the 3rd floor is easier than taking the stairs to the second floor even though the third floor is higher up than the second floor. Taking the stairs forces you to travel more over less space. It's the same thing in BW. When moving an army is a bitch to do, then maps will feel absolutely huge. When moving an army is easy to do, then it doesn't matter if they're travelling twice the distance.
In SC2, the map size makes you worried about being "out of position" in BW the map size makes you go "alright, box click time!"
EDIT This is why we can't literally just "port" things from BW to SC2, map sizes, unit interactions, gameplay interactions they all play out differently between both games. There's a reason SC2 maps are called small even when they are much bigger than BW maps. It's because the games are different. Making SC2 maps even bigger would not change that. And adding BW units would not change things very much either.
The problems that SC2 has don't get fixed by doing direct ports such "add the lurker, that will fix things!" because the problems with SC2 has nothing to do with whether the lurker exists or not. Between creep spread, baneling mines, and Infestor harass SC2 terrans do more than their fair share of forced scan play. And why is it always the lurker or the reaver? WHy don't I hear cries of 'bring back the scout' "valkery was the shit!" "return medics! because if one thing bio play needs, its medivacs that heal each other!"
People ask for iconic non-boring unit ports to SC2 because there is a large amount of nostalgia with them. I remember when I realized that I could be moving reavers around with a shuttle and began decimating opponents on fastest maps. You should see how many kills a reaver gets when all workers are stacked on one mineral patch
And lets say Blizzard does return BW units to SC2, and SC2 will have lurkers and reavers and firebats and shield batteries etc...
Well then people would complain about the same things in SC2 that they currently are complaining about--only they don't have the "just bring back the lurker" excuse. Why? because a direct port would reveal them to be OP, they would then be nerfed, then they would become as effective as the units we have now.
The problems with SC2 are philosophical. For example, Mech play is really just tank play. Outside of the siege tank, there is really no advantage to going mech play vs bio play. Why? Because marauders deal heavy siege damage at lower cost and can be gotten a tier earlier. Mech play is literally tank play with hellion meat shields and Thor AA.
Compared to mech play in BW where vultures were not just meat shields, but their own form of heavy crowd control mech play. Spider Mines, run bys, meat shields, etc... Vulture play could exist without tank play, and vice versa. The same cant be said for hellions and siege tanks.
Air play? Non of that in SC2. Mass banshee is great and all--but one phoenix ruins your day. All terran air units are highly task specific. Banshee hits ground, viking hits air, etc... It makes it so that the brunt of air play in SC2 rests on the shoulders of battlecruisers. Unlike in BW where 2port wraiths was both air control and ground assault.
Adding wraiths in SC2 would not solve the issue, since SC2 AA has to be able to handle banshees. Which are cloaked wraiths that deal 150% more damage to ground units. Bring a wraith to a banshee fight and you've got yourself a dead wraith.
The point I'm making is that Barracks tech is not made with factory tech and starport tech in mind (save for medivacs) and vice versa for all three of them. Since barracks play already has meatshields, siege breakers, and spellcasters--why make ravens/tanks?
From a purely abstract level, terran unit design is
Barracks => everything Factory => splash Starport => gimmicky play
As opposed to Barracks =>good unit, splash unit, gimmicky unit Factory =>good unit, splash unit, gimmicky unit Starport => good unit, splash unit gimmicky unit
And it's the same with the other races as well. Notice how lair tech doesn't really do anything except give zerg something to support zergling play? How zergling/roach/bane are the mainstay unit until you get to Hive?
robotech for protoss actually works--but their Starport and Templar tech options are atrocious. Also, no synergies between any of their divergent tech trees. Its not like in BW where going Starport tech and templar tech eventually gets you arbiters or going robotech and starport tech allows you to fight off scourge/wraiths with corsairs as you do dropship play, or templar/zealot drops with shuttle play if you went Robo/archives
It forces toss play to be robo+archives tech OR starport tech only. There isn't a synergy or a sense of being able to mix and match tech decisions. This is not a unit design problem, this is a tech tree design problem. Adding lurkers would not solve it for much the same reason adding scouts would not solve it.
On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote: On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
name one from recent interviews, gogo.
forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way.
The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI.
It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
I always find this explanation to be complete bullshit.
Don't think of it as limiting the UI rather think of it as changing the rules of the game. It's like saying that you should be able to pick up the ball with your hands in football(soccer) because we've got hands here in 2012 and it would be a lot easier to keep control over the ball and do what you want with it.
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way.
The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI.
It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
I always find this explanation to be complete bullshit.
Don't think of it as limiting the UI rather think of it as changing the rules of the game. It's like saying that you should be able to pick up the ball with your hands in football(soccer) because we've got hands here in 2012 and it would be a lot easier to keep control over the ball and do what you want with it.
It would be more like playing hockey in old rusty skates, instead of upgrading to the newer more efficient skates.
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way.
The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI.
It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
I always find this explanation to be complete bullshit.
Don't think of it as limiting the UI rather think of it as changing the rules of the game. It's like saying that you should be able to pick up the ball with your hands in football(soccer) because we've got hands here in 2012 and it would be a lot easier to keep control over the ball and do what you want with it.
It would be more like playing hockey in old rusty skates, instead of upgrading to the newer more efficient skates.
Don't be ridiculous. It'd be like requiring that hockey must be played on a lake and not a stadium because damn it that's how we used to do it. Being careful or risky on the ice was part of the skill! If you were scared of falling through you wouldn't play as hard as the fearless players. Players who were willing to stab the ice to gain initial momentum and who werent afraid of shaving the the top to have better movement control at the cost of thinning the ice more than it already was.
That was true skill. Now everyone does those things because they know exactly how thick the ice is, they know they can't fall through the ice, and they know there is no water beneath them. Theres no more risk in shaving the ice to break better, or to stab the ice to increase initial momentum. You don't get scared of falling on the ice since you know your 200+ pounds of muscle will not break it. So its no longer the brave ones who play defense and get in people's faces--everyone does that now.
I don't know how useful all these analogies are. I could say what if all the new changes are like putting training wheels on a bike. It helps out the beginner player from not falling down, but it get's in the way of the pro that want's to freestyle bmx or downhill mountain bike. See? The changes are so much worse.
But how much does analogy after analogy actually shed more light on the situation?
Edit Having said that, I will never argue for 12 unit selection or a reversal of MBS. I think there are benefits to that system, but I think it's an unwinnable argument. More options for unit movement (move attack) I think is a much easier argument because it opens up new possibilities that have been closed down.
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote: By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way.
The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI.
It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
I always find this explanation to be complete bullshit.
Don't think of it as limiting the UI rather think of it as changing the rules of the game. It's like saying that you should be able to pick up the ball with your hands in football(soccer) because we've got hands here in 2012 and it would be a lot easier to keep control over the ball and do what you want with it.
That's one way to think about it. However, consider the differences in your analogy.
People accept the "no hands" rule of Soccer because it's a fundamental part of the sport. It is a rule so fundamental to the sport that it is literally part of the name: football. It is immediately obvious why the rule exists, and it's clear that the sport simply would not work without it (or would have to otherwise be radically altered to make it continue to work). Changing this rule would break the sport for everyone playing it.
StarCraft is not broken by having infinite unit selection. The game still works without having a selection cap. Even if you do believe that removing the cap breaks the game, you have to accept that it is only broken for the highest skilled players. For everyone else, the game works just fine. It may lower the skill ceiling, but for most people, there's plenty of headroom in that skill ceiling that they won't notice.
That's what makes the limitation feel artificial. It's not a natural, obvious rule that is a fundamental part of RTS gaming. It's just what certain older games had, likely for programming limitation reasons.
On July 02 2012 04:38 Falling wrote: Having said that, I will never argue for 12 unit selection or a reversal of MBS. I think there are benefits to that system, but I think it's an unwinnable argument. More options for unit movement (move attack) I think is a much easier argument because it opens up new possibilities that have been closed down.
On July 02 2012 04:45 NicolBolas wrote: StarCraft is not broken by having infinite unit selection. The game still works without having a selection cap. Even if you do believe that removing the cap breaks the game, you have to accept that it is only broken for the highest skilled players. For everyone else, the game works just fine. It may lower the skill ceiling, but for most people, there's plenty of headroom in that skill ceiling that they won't notice.
That's why I also want blizzard to implement a tournament mode with seperate changes to balance/mechanics and a seperate ladder too while the old still also exists.
On July 02 2012 04:38 Falling wrote: I don't know how useful all these analogies are. I could say what if all the new changes are like putting training wheels on a bike. It helps out the beginner player from not falling down, but it get's in the way of the pro that want's to freestyle bmx or downhill mountain bike. See? The changes are so much worse.
But how much does analogy after analogy actually shed more light on the situation?
Edit Having said that, I will never argue for 12 unit selection or a reversal of MBS. I think there are benefits to that system, but I think it's an unwinnable argument. More options for unit movement (move attack) I think is a much easier argument because it opens up new possibilities that have been closed down.
SC2 is perfectly built for a reversal of MBS, by the way. Macro mechanics as replacements for sending workers to minerals (mule, chronoboost, inject). In the case of terran and zerg, even without MBS, macro is still easier than Brood War because of reactors (less barracks needed) and inject (less hatcheries needed). Only protoss would not work without MBS, because of warpgates. However, you have a 'select all warpgates' hotkey, so that would work too.
I think it would be a good idea, to be honest. Maybe only for pro players though, so blizzard would need to have a separate ladder for pros, which won't happen I guess.
from a purely forum discourse perspective, should we return focus back to the main topic of unit designs in BW being ported into SC2 and away from the merits of limited UI vs less limited UI?
On July 05 2012 10:08 Honeybadger wrote: If you hate being able to select more than 12 units at a time, then don't.
Just because you can select your entire army with a single hotkey does not make the blob better.
The player that has a single hotkey versus three hotkeys is going to lose to the player that knows how to divide up his units.
So stop whining and start using more control groups yourselves, for fuck's sakes. What an awful argument.
Look, I dispise the idea of going back to limited unit selection. But at least I understand the argument.
They're not wanting self-imposed challenge; they want game-imposed challenge. They want the rules of the game to be modified to make the game more difficult for everyone. Thereby (presumably) making the game more entertaining to watch by raising the skill ceiling.
So stop talking about strawmen and start talking about the actual position What a horrible missunderstanding of an argument.
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
Because you don't aspire to improve upon the aesthetic department from a spectator's point of view, it doesn't mean that the rest of us wishes for the identical deed. If the game can even ameliorate by 1%, then it is up to the developers to find what is that missing piece of puzzle and fucking implement it into its appropriate place.
On July 05 2012 11:07 Darknat wrote: Because Starcraft 2 is a continuation, not a remake.
Correction: StarCraft 2 is a game that ignored all aspects from what made its father the most successful RTS game ever and didn't learn anything from the old man.
On July 05 2012 11:07 Darknat wrote: Because Starcraft 2 is a continuation, not a remake.
Correction: StarCraft 2 is a game that ignored all aspects from what made its father the most successful RTS game ever and didn't learn anything from the old man.
Correction: StarCraft 2 is a game that ignored many aspects from what made its father the most successful RTS game ever and didn't learn anything from the old man.
Let's not overstate our case and lose credibility.
On July 05 2012 11:07 Darknat wrote: Because Starcraft 2 is a continuation, not a remake.
Correction: StarCraft 2 is a game that ignored all aspects from what made its father the most successful RTS game ever and didn't learn anything from the old man.
Correction: StarCraft 2 is a game that ignored many aspects from what made its father the most successful RTS game ever and didn't learn anything from the old man.
Let's not overstate our case and lose credibility.
Pardon me. Got a bit emotionally carried away there.
Yeah so I've been thinking about this a lot, particularly Blizzard's reluctance to re-implement the lurker.
I feel like the lurker is CRUCIAL to zerg gameplay, b/c it allows positional play. Same with the reaver. If Blizzard is not going to implement the lurker in exact representation, at the very least implement something with similar mechanics. Not this stupid swarm host unit that doesn't do jack. Seriously? Poop out a stream of crap that gets killed by more than 10 marines....wtf.
The concept that the lurker "overlaps" with the baneling is completely false.
Here's an analogy. It's like saying that the siege tank overlaps with the spidermine b/c they both do AOE.
But the two units are vastly different.
The difference between the two is that lurker provides sustainable AOE allowing for space control. Baneling/fungal does not, b/c it is not sustainable.
AOE in general needs a boost. The collosus also needs to go. Just...bye bye!
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
Because you don't aspire to improve upon the aesthetic department from a spectator's point of view, it doesn't mean that the rest of us wishes for the identical deed. If the game can even ameliorate by 1%, then it is up to the developers to find what is that missing piece of puzzle and fucking implement it into its appropriate place.
Note that "rest of us" is opinions of your own and everything you are assuming are all subjectives, just keep that in mind when you make statements with such heavy implications.
And what I said has nothing to do with the aesthetic department. It was meant for the poster above me, so I suppose you might not have catch the context
I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic. 2: Late game micro for protoss becomes for challenging, (ie. using warp prisms with reavers to protect that important splash damage), and the skill cap becomes higher, it also gives the Protoss some much needed harassment options. 3: The vikings range no longer has to be 9, it could be reduced to 7 or 8, this opens up (potentially) usage of the carrier in late game PvT. 4: Suddenly PvP becomes probably the coolest matchup in the game and not a collosus count to see who wins. 5: Lastly, and most importantly, we can finally stop seeing the most braindead unit ever created in the greatest RTS game series of all time.
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic. 2: Late game micro for protoss becomes for challenging, (ie. using warp prisms with reavers to protect that important splash damage), and the skill cap becomes higher, it also gives the Protoss some much needed harassment options. 3: The vikings range no longer has to be 9, it could be reduced to 7 or 8, this opens up (potentially) usage of the carrier in late game PvT. 4: Suddenly PvP becomes probably the coolest matchup in the game and not a collosus count to see who wins. 5: Lastly, and most importantly, we can finally stop seeing the most braindead unit ever created in the greatest RTS game series of all time.
Roaches are pretty fucking braindead as well. No old units should be brought back on top of the ones that are already still here.
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic. 2: Late game micro for protoss becomes for challenging, (ie. using warp prisms with reavers to protect that important splash damage), and the skill cap becomes higher, it also gives the Protoss some much needed harassment options. 3: The vikings range no longer has to be 9, it could be reduced to 7 or 8, this opens up (potentially) usage of the carrier in late game PvT. 4: Suddenly PvP becomes probably the coolest matchup in the game and not a collosus count to see who wins. 5: Lastly, and most importantly, we can finally stop seeing the most braindead unit ever created in the greatest RTS game series of all time.
So you take the collosus
Cut its cost in half
Remove the range upgrade requirement
Then triple its damage
Then give it the "drawback" that (with micro) only a viking can stop it since marauders and roaches can't shoot up?
Hmmm...... I see terrible terrible balance whine in the future.
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are really big, dunno what you are talking about
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
Actually, I don't think they are. It's just that there is much more open space whereas current SCII maps are so "chokey."
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
Actually, I don't think they are. It's just that there is much more open space whereas current SCII maps are so "chokey."
On July 05 2012 12:57 lorkac wrote: BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps.
i've always said we should go back to steppes of war lol. Another reason the deathballs are so prevalent is because the maps are too big and thus give the defender too much of an advantage by just sitting on his ass and making stuff.
of course...this brings back some broken rush builds but meh.
On July 05 2012 12:57 lorkac wrote: BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps.
..... If you have time to dig up numbers, make sure they are ones that actually are helpful. Units move at different speeds and have different sizes anyways.
Time the amount of time it takes for an army to get from one base to another.
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic. 2: Late game micro for protoss becomes for challenging, (ie. using warp prisms with reavers to protect that important splash damage), and the skill cap becomes higher, it also gives the Protoss some much needed harassment options. 3: The vikings range no longer has to be 9, it could be reduced to 7 or 8, this opens up (potentially) usage of the carrier in late game PvT. 4: Suddenly PvP becomes probably the coolest matchup in the game and not a collosus count to see who wins. 5: Lastly, and most importantly, we can finally stop seeing the most braindead unit ever created in the greatest RTS game series of all time.
HOTS fixes a lot of issues for Zerg already. Although I don't particularly like the Colossus as a unit, I'm not sure if re-introducing a Reaver will be the fix it solution for Protoss.
One of Hydra's biggest issue is being fixed in HOTS, their speed. With 3.375 movement speed, they move as fast as Stimmed Bio off creep. They're a mobile, extremely quick, high DPS strike force. With Vipers, they're able to snatch and deal with AOE units, their second weakness.
Nerfing Viking range will bring about other issues in the other match ups. They're meant to be long-range for a reason, to deal with Broodlords and Colossus both. Not just one. They're already essentially glass cannons, having the lowest HP of all specialized anti-armour/anti-light Air units. I didn't include Mutalisk since they're a harassment unit.
With the way units cluster in SCII, a high damage AOE unit like the Reaver would just wreck Bio-balls and Zerg swarms far too easily. Different games require different units.
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade.
Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough).
It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous.
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
22 range tempest coming Should address your space control complaint nicely + Show Spoiler +
Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic
On July 05 2012 12:57 lorkac wrote: BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps.
..... If you have time to dig up numbers, make sure they are ones that actually are helpful. Units move at different speeds and have different sizes anyways.
Time the amount of time it takes for an army to get from one base to another.
I didn't bring up map sizes.
BW maps are smaller than SC2 maps--that's math talking. People who believe that SC2 maps are smaller are plain wrong. Now you feel that it is unit speed that determines this--then that is easy to fix, scale back unit speed for all units across the board. If everything moved half as fast as they did right now, maps would feel twice as big. We already have a button for that in SC2, it's called normal speed. Which means that if the only problem is "map size" then we shouldn't have made maps bigger, we simply had to play at a lower game speed. Done.
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade.
Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough).
It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous.
Zerg will not be able to beat a collosus that has half the cost, three times the damage, and three times the speed. (WP speed upgrade)
All the while being less vulnerable to ground based attacks.
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
22 range tempest coming Should address your space control complaint nicely + Show Spoiler +
Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic
I can't believe that they're not simply giving the range upgrade to the carrier.... you don't need to be a tempest to have 22 range, a 22 range carrier would be amazingly cool (and fitting to its flavor)
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
22 range tempest coming Should address your space control complaint nicely + Show Spoiler +
Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic
I can't believe that they're not simply giving the range upgrade to the carrier.... you don't need to be a tempest to have 22 range, a 22 range carrier would be amazingly cool (and fitting to its flavor)
Yeah.. fixing the carrier would be a lot better of an idea. Change up the way it micros.. Give it some new ability or buff it up a little.. So many things they can do. Dunno why theyre just giving up on it without ever trying to change it (i'm sure they did some stuff internally but thats all guessing and hoping lol)
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade.
Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough).
It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous.
Zerg will not be able to beat a collosus that has half the cost, three times the damage, and three times the speed. (WP speed upgrade)
All the while being less vulnerable to ground based attacks.
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote: I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade.
Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough).
It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous.
Zerg will not be able to beat a collosus that has half the cost, three times the damage, and three times the speed. (WP speed upgrade)
All the while being less vulnerable to ground based attacks.
Not if they add the scourge.
Your solution to a problem created by adding a SC1 unit is to... add another SC1 unit. And if that one causes problems, I'm guessing the solution will be another SC1 unit.
The problem with this conversation is this. The people wanting more SC1 units do so for either one of two reasons:
1: They want good units in the game. There are a number of good units in SC1.
2: They want the game to be exactly like SC1. Not a sequel, a clone.
#2 represents a point of view that can't be reasoned with. They want what they want, and nobody's talking them out of it. They want SC1 with better graphics. There's no point in having a discussion with them because they're not going to budge.
#1 is a position that can be reasoned with. They want to make the game better in an objective sense; SC1 units are used because it had some solid units in it. This position can be placated by creating new units that are also good.
This conversation bogs down because people from group 2 keep getting involved. Blizzard isn't going to make SC1 with better graphics. The sooner you realize this, the better. They're not just going to copy-and-paste SC1 units into the game.
They can also just buff dmg done by Spore Crawlers or Hydralisks if that makes you so sensitive about re-introducing a skillful controlled unit.
The point is that nearly every single SC:BW units was something cool to watch. They took out all the micro aspect of the game and replaced it with sub-par mechanics sans Stalker micro and kept the same for Marines. I'd say remove ALL the boring units OUT of the game and replace them with community-based idea WILL be the best move that Blizz made in the franchise. But unfortunately, we all know that their inflated ego (well I'm pretty sure that the programming teams are cool dudes that worked hard to be where they are today, so its primarily Dustin B.) surely will not permit such changed to occur.
Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum? As much pain it hurts me saying this but Blizzard is killing their reps big time.
Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum? As much pain it hurts me saying this but Blizzard is killing their reps big time.
To be fair here we could ask what happened to the gamer community who did not want warcraft in space, but a new different game.
On July 06 2012 05:41 Xiphos wrote: Woah woah, man calm down for Boson's sake lol
They can also just buff dmg done by Spore Crawlers or Hydralisks if that makes you so sensitive about re-introducing a skillful controlled unit.
The point is that nearly every single SC:BW units was something cool to watch. They took out all the micro aspect of the game and replaced it with sub-par mechanics sans Stalker micro and kept the same for Marines. I'd say remove ALL the boring units OUT of the game and replace them with community-based idea WILL be the best move that Blizz made in the franchise. But unfortunately, we all know that their inflated ego (well I'm pretty sure that the programming teams are cool dudes that worked hard to be where they are today, so its primarily Dustin B.) surely will not permit such changed to occur.
Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum? As much pain it hurts me saying this but Blizzard is killing their reps big time.
agreed 100 percent; almost every unit in bw was a grace to witness. They (almost) all had their fun micro aspects.
Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum? As much pain it hurts me saying this but Blizzard is killing their reps big time.
To be fair here we could ask what happened to the gamer community who did not want warcraft in space, but a new different game.
They are converted into StarCraft fans after seeing the better things of the game.
Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum? As much pain it hurts me saying this but Blizzard is killing their reps big time.
To be fair here we could ask what happened to the gamer community who did not want warcraft in space, but a new different game.
They are converted into StarCraft fans after seeing the better things of the game.
Not sure what you mean. I will reformulate. My point was that the community's standard have gown down, which is why Blizzard can get away with making worse decision. Plus I personnally believe that people who point out that sc2 is too close to its predecessor are right. BW is my favorite game by far, but there's no reason why its formula is the only possible to make a great RTS. For me, either Blizz should have done a slight graphical upgrade of bw, only touching/changing some underused units (Queens, Ghost, DA for instance) and then sell it for 15€, or try to revolutionnize the RTS genre as it had done before. Instead they went in between, and just made a worse version of brood war and they are stuck between the fact that bw did what they've done better and the understandable fact that they don't want it to be a copy, which in turn means that the kind of fight we're having here are bound to happen. I personnally think that the community should have made clear that bw already existed and that we wanted something new, but for esport and other close reasons, this was not meant to be.
The point of those units is that they 1-2 shot everything. But they might only hit 2-4 units typically.
If in SC2, they hit 4-8 units, and because of that you 1/2 their damage, that "balances" their damage, but would result in the same deathball - because now they aren't reavers, but colossi. If it takes a reaver 4 shots to kill something, that no longer allows it to harass as effectively, etc.
Well, personally, I think a sequel should be an addition to series. It should have all BW units AND more Buts thats okay, I dont think they lacked efforts when making SC2, its a well done game I just wish they were a bit more "wild" with the new units. They look and work so, I dunno, boring
Also bring back the BW sound effects. Like seriously, SC2 sound effects are ass. Just compare the 2 siege tanks sieging, for example.
On July 06 2012 06:25 architecture wrote: You can't nerf the damage.
The point of those units is that they 1-2 shot everything. But they might only hit 2-4 units typically.
If in SC2, they hit 4-8 units, and because of that you 1/2 their damage, that "balances" their damage, but would result in the same deathball - because now they aren't reavers, but colossi. If it takes a reaver 4 shots to kill something, that no longer allows it to harass as effectively, etc.
Scarabs do 125 damage, so they one shot worker very easily, you can nerf that and they will still still be effcicient aat harassing. You can also nerf the area of effect in itself, just like storm.
I feel like people arguing for limited selection, no MBS, no smartcast, BW units, etc. are kinda wasting their time. It's never going to happen.
We should focus all our efforts on demanding moving shot. Because that's something that doesn't go against any of Dbrowder's stated design philosophies, and could truly make the game better without making it "more difficult" for new players.
On July 06 2012 05:41 Xiphos wrote: Woah woah, man calm down for Boson's sake lol
They can also just buff dmg done by Spore Crawlers or Hydralisks if that makes you so sensitive about re-introducing a skillful controlled unit.
Welcome to being an example of exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.
It's not about "re-introducing a skillful controlled unit" for you; it's about re-introducing the Reaver. That is, you want the Reaver back. You don't want to introduce a "skillful controlled unit", you want to reintroduce one. It's more important to you that it's a SC1 unit than that it's a "skillful controlled unit".
I want well-designed new units, not well-designed old ones.
On July 06 2012 05:41 Xiphos wrote: I'd say remove ALL the boring units OUT of the game and replace them with community-based idea WILL be the best move that Blizz made in the franchise.
And by "community-based idea," you mean "copy-and-paste a bunch of SC1 units into the game." Because I've yet to see any "community-based ideas" that isn't just "remove SC2 unit X and replace it with SC1 unit Y."
I agree that there are some weak units in SC2 that should be replaced with better, more interesting ones. What they should not do is replace them with carbon copies of SC1 units. SC2 needs more of its own identity, not stealing the identity of its predicessor.
On July 06 2012 05:41 Xiphos wrote: Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum?
When did that happen? What I saw in SC1 was them prototyping the game on the WC2 engine, then developing the actual game with the real engine.
If you honestly believe that Blizzard upgraded the SC1 engine solely because of E3 criticism, you're deluding yourself.
On July 06 2012 06:10 corumjhaelen wrote: Plus I personnally believe that people who point out that sc2 is too close to its predecessor are right. BW is my favorite game by far, but there's no reason why its formula is the only possible to make a great RTS. For me, either Blizz should have done a slight graphical upgrade of bw, only touching/changing some underused units (Queens, Ghost, DA for instance) and then sell it for 15€, or try to revolutionnize the RTS genre as it had done before. Instead they went in between, and just made a worse version of brood war and they are stuck between the fact that bw did what they've done better and the understandable fact that they don't want it to be a copy, which in turn means that the kind of fight we're having here are bound to happen.
I agree with the general idea that they tried too hard to stick with certan SC1 concepts while making SC2. But I don't think they needed to "revolutionize" anything (and they didn't revolutionize RTS's with SC1. At least, not intensionally).
The three races are based off of core ideology. The Protoss have few, hardy, expensive units with game-changing powers. The Zerg have large numbers of weak, simple units, with a few important support spells that let these units do more work. And the Terran units are all ranged and almost every one has special abilities that makes them more flexible.
The fact that the Protoss uses smaller numbers of durable units does not mean that you have to have Zealots. It doesn't mean that their tech tree needs to branch into 3 paths. It doesn't mean that they need to have Pylons that supply power to their buildings. And so forth.
The core race ideology does not require the specific implementation used by SC1. SC2 could have been an effective rewrite to these units. Taking the same racial identities and giving them an entire suite of new units, spells, and tech trees.
But Blizzard only went half-way. They kept "iconic" units. And more constraining, they kept the same basic tech tree for each race. The Terrans are built on a 3-tier structure, with each tier having separate upgrades. Why? They don't have to work that way. They could have used a different tech system. And while they did play around with the Terrans a bit (swappable Tech Labs to hasten the tech tree a bit), it's still the same overall tech tree.
There is a lot of design space that Blizzard simply couldn't use because they were holding on to "iconic" units and ideas. The original Thor was an interesting idea for a siege unit: it just walks up to what it needs to kill and absorbs fire. It uses it's Barrage Mode (different from the modern Strike Cannons) to do AoE damage. But that's too much like Siege Tanks, so it became a crippled Goliath.
On July 06 2012 05:41 Xiphos wrote: Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum?
When did that happen? What I saw in SC1 was them prototyping the game on the WC2 engine, then developing the actual game with the real engine.
If you honestly believe that Blizzard upgraded the SC1 engine solely because of E3 criticism, you're deluding yourself.
Well, he may be "deluding himself" (which is not exactly a nice way to say things), but that's what every website I've looked at on the internet says. More or less, they wanted it to go out as fast as wc2 did (one year so it would have gone out in 1996), and given the very harsh criticism they receeived they delayed it and made a new engine. http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/blizzard/p3_01.html for instance, or google starcraft alpha e3 1996.
On July 06 2012 06:10 corumjhaelen wrote: Plus I personnally believe that people who point out that sc2 is too close to its predecessor are right. BW is my favorite game by far, but there's no reason why its formula is the only possible to make a great RTS. For me, either Blizz should have done a slight graphical upgrade of bw, only touching/changing some underused units (Queens, Ghost, DA for instance) and then sell it for 15€, or try to revolutionnize the RTS genre as it had done before. Instead they went in between, and just made a worse version of brood war and they are stuck between the fact that bw did what they've done better and the understandable fact that they don't want it to be a copy, which in turn means that the kind of fight we're having here are bound to happen.
I agree with the general idea that they tried too hard to stick with certan SC1 concepts while making SC2. But I don't think they needed to "revolutionize" anything (and they didn't revolutionize RTS's with SC1. At least, not intensionally).
The three races are based off of core ideology. The Protoss have few, hardy, expensive units with game-changing powers. The Zerg have large numbers of weak, simple units, with a few important support spells that let these units do more work. And the Terran units are all ranged and almost every one has special abilities that makes them more flexible.
The fact that the Protoss uses smaller numbers of durable units does not mean that you have to have Zealots. It doesn't mean that their tech tree needs to branch into 3 paths. It doesn't mean that they need to have Pylons that supply power to their buildings. And so forth.
The core race ideology does not require the specific implementation used by SC1. SC2 could have been an effective rewrite to these units. Taking the same racial identities and giving them an entire suite of new units, spells, and tech trees.
But Blizzard only went half-way. They kept "iconic" units. And more constraining, they kept the same basic tech tree for each race. The Terrans are built on a 3-tier structure, with each tier having separate upgrades. Why? They don't have to work that way. They could have used a different tech system. And while they did play around with the Terrans a bit (swappable Tech Labs to hasten the tech tree a bit), it's still the same overall tech tree.
There is a lot of design space that Blizzard simply couldn't use because they were holding on to "iconic" units and ideas. The original Thor was an interesting idea for a siege unit: it just walks up to what it needs to kill and absorbs fire. It uses it's Barrage Mode (different from the modern Strike Cannons) to do AoE damage. But that's too much like Siege Tanks, so it became a crippled Goliath.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but :
1) yes starcraft was, well maybe not revolutionnary if you're harsh on the definition (so not to the extent of Dune 2), but it was original in a few important way and it made an impact on how many rts after were made. I'm thinking mainly of the 3 asymetric races here, but I'll also add that the zerg larva ressource was highly original and could be seen as an ancestor to more modern recruitment systems, and many of the unit were pretty original. I might being missing some things too.
2) I was not only thinking of starcraft, but also warcraft and warcraft 3 (the 2 being an upgraded version of the first opus), the second proving that blizzard can be ready to change a lot of things in the gameplay inside a serie...
3) Yes they could have touched the tech tree, that would have made direct unit comparison harder... And they could also have touched the antique, done a billion time before ressource/building system, in a way or another... (btw one of their rare small initiative in this domain, the terran add-on's new system, is one of the clearest improvement in the game).
I'll finally add that the beta period and before was a period of wasted opportunities and miscommunication. The best example of this is how we came from roaches being an interesting unit with a relatively original concept to the blandest and most boring unit in the game. Or the phoenix moving shot fiasco, which many on this website took as a slap in the face. But the incessent bw comparison probably did no help.
They upgraded the SC1 engine because it didn't allow them to do all the things that they envisioned, so they gutted the entire project and started anew. However they changed their minds on just making warcraft in space because of the reception at E3.
I don't think straying too far from core concepts would have been ideal. Personally I don't find any of the core traits of each race bothersome to deal with, nor are they too complex. I don't think it's because they are limited by "having to use core units" such as the marine or the zealot either, it's just how each race tends to play out. Could they have designed cooler base units than a siege tank, marine, zealot or zergling? Perhaps, but they would probably just be a re-skin, akin to stalkers just being dragoons with blink. If it isn't broken, why bother trying to change? The core units were interesting enough to be kept in the sequel.
I actually think SC2 does have alot of things going for it. On paper it sounded heaps exciting, all these different little things that slightly added more depth: creep, switchable addons, macro mechanics, watchtowers. All these things managed to add on top of the winning formula instead of having to rewrite base mechanics.
However, many of the units don't feel like an upgrade. Roaches can't hit air and are 2 supply over their tier 1.5 counterparts. Thors feel like needlessly large and chunky goliaths or valkries that have to be limited to walking on land. With banshees and vikings, you feel like they just wasted their time when wraiths could just harass both air and ground and keep air dominance.
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote: I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
22 range tempest coming Should address your space control complaint nicely + Show Spoiler +
Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic
I can't believe that they're not simply giving the range upgrade to the carrier.... you don't need to be a tempest to have 22 range, a 22 range carrier would be amazingly cool (and fitting to its flavor)
The Tempest is about getting and retaining vision of the target area, this would be slightly too easy with interceptors.
I'm glad they don't just reintroduce the old BW units. If you want BW units, go play BW. SC2 is a new game and progress isn't always a bad thing. For me, I don't see the point in just playing with the same stuff again since everybody is familiar to it and because it gets boring. We need refreshments. While I agree that the BW units were awesome and also that the new units are kinda alike, I welcome the progress.
I dont really think introducing units from BW is necesary . Its more about concepts from BW .
For example , in BW you had the PLAQUE : cool high damage spell that would not kill stuff . It would deal tremendous damage but you could pull back infected units and they wouldnt die . That was a COOL concept .
Now you have an Esnare+plaque merge , that both damages , snares and kills stuff . Its totally braindead . Its also not dodgable . There is absoloutely no downside to using it , and its a quaranteed kill on whatever it hits . You can only mitigate the damage by spreading but thats not really a good dynamic is it ?
Or the ever complained about Collosi. Its amove , too clunky to micro well , unresponsive. Good against all on ground boring ass unit . I mean, they couldve kept the unit but given it an interesting feature like, dunno , for example instead of the upgrade buffing its range it could give it an "AOE saturation channeling ability" that has a fairly long range or something interesting .
All in all, its not about units per se, its more about the philosophy of Command and Conquer , which i love btw , in starcraft ... which just dont mix well together
I still believe that colossus is the worst type of unit and fungal the worst type of spell in the game. The Colossus requires next to no control to use efficiently and is very strong. They don't have to introduce BW units to be fair, but introduce units that are fun, and that have the same level of "effective" range. Good control should be rewarded. When I mean fun units, I totally understand that having colossus is fun for the guy using them. They grant you easily very effective damage, but the design is one-dimensional.. Fungal is also stupid 'cause it totally removes the power of control for the enemy. It also deals a hefty amount of damage. Storm on the other hand is dodgable if you control your units and react quickly. A spell like plague did punish the enemy, but fungal is overkill if you think fungal vs for example Hunter-Seeker Missile. Fungal just negates too much for its cost, and is flawed from a design perspective with the amount of resources that are available on a map, or on basic 3/4 base economy which is become very usual these days.
On July 06 2012 05:41 Xiphos wrote: I'd say remove ALL the boring units OUT of the game and replace them with community-based idea WILL be the best move that Blizz made in the franchise.
And by "community-based idea," you mean "copy-and-paste a bunch of SC1 units into the game." Because I've yet to see any "community-based ideas" that isn't just "remove SC2 unit X and replace it with SC1 unit Y."
I agree that there are some weak units in SC2 that should be replaced with better, more interesting ones. What they should not do is replace them with carbon copies of SC1 units. SC2 needs more of its own identity, not stealing the identity of its predicessor.
Well, I could give you some cool ideas, but a lot of them would be stolen from other games and people would just not want them for the sake of them being from C&C or so. But the good news is, that the Terrordrone (C&C RA2 and RA3; widow mine) is coming. The sad news, that the scorpion tank (C&C Generals; warhound) is coming as well. Well, won't make too much of a difference. After all SC1 already copied Terran heavily from the original C&C. So I guess they just keep it up. And yeah, I know SC1 was supposed to be some Warhammer game. Doesn't mean that the way the units and techpaths work wasn't some copy of C&C.
(though they should really just implement the RA3 microheavy Terrordrone in some form, which can fulfill both roles, the widow mine and the warhound)
On July 25 2012 00:28 RampancyTW wrote: The Widow Mine is almost nothing like a Terrordrone, other than the fact that it doesn't immediately kill a mechanical unit.
Small cheap vulnerable unit that shares a techpath with powerful mechanical units, gives you mapcontrol and attacks by attaching itself to a unit, which gives the opponent some time to minimize the damage? Sounds a lot like the concept for a Terrordrone to me.
True, it is a very Starcraftesque version of the Terrordrone, but as far as I have tested it in the HotS custom map, it shares a ton of dynamics with the Terrordrone. But yeah, I wish they made it faster, gave it some form of channeling lockdown spell and cut the warhound
On July 25 2012 00:48 RampancyTW wrote: Never thought of it like that. I suppose they ARE somewhat similar in role.
The actual mechanics of their use are very, very different though.
yeah ofc. It's obviously somewhat similar to the spider mine as well, but I mean... it's a dustin browder game, guess what was a Dustin Browder game as well There is obviously some thought behind it and I do like it. After all, we are talking about one of the better RTS units of all time
On July 25 2012 00:28 RampancyTW wrote: The Widow Mine is almost nothing like a Terrordrone, other than the fact that it doesn't immediately kill a mechanical unit.
Small cheap vulnerable unit that shares a techpath with powerful mechanical units, gives you mapcontrol and attacks by attaching itself to a unit, which gives the opponent some time to minimize the damage? Sounds a lot like the concept for a Terrordrone to me.
There's a difference between "two units having a similar overall gameplay function" and "copy-and-past from another game." I was talking about the latter, which is what the entire idea behind this thread is: transforming the former into the latter simply because that's how SC1 did it.
Any unit idea is going to be reminiscent of something in another RTS game. But there's a difference between "reminiscent" and "put Lurkers in SC2."
On July 25 2012 00:28 RampancyTW wrote: The Widow Mine is almost nothing like a Terrordrone, other than the fact that it doesn't immediately kill a mechanical unit.
Small cheap vulnerable unit that shares a techpath with powerful mechanical units, gives you mapcontrol and attacks by attaching itself to a unit, which gives the opponent some time to minimize the damage? Sounds a lot like the concept for a Terrordrone to me.
There's a difference between "two units having a similar overall gameplay function" and "copy-and-past from another game." I was talking about the latter, which is what the entire idea behind this thread is: transforming the former into the latter simply because that's how SC1 did it.
Any unit idea is going to be reminiscent of something in another RTS game. But there's a difference between "reminiscent" and "put Lurkers in SC2."
Well, I completly agree with you. The original post from me said that I'm completly fine with adopting units from any game. I just do think, that people will have a very negative attitude towards such, because a lot of people are suffering from the misconception that it's the unit design, that make the RTS and therefore units from RTS games that are not BW are not good.
On the flipside those people often think, that things have to be very BWesque and it's quite hard to argue with that, because after all BW was probably the best RTS up to SC2 (well, some people will argue they prefer WC3, but you get what I want to say) and a lot of it will always come down to flavor. Yet I'm completly with you, SC2 is not Broodwar and no matter how much you try to fit BW units into SC2, they won't work out the same way unless the enviroment is somewhat the same - at which point it becomes a graphical update, imo.
I had this brilliant idea as well. Let's take a game that is arguably dead, grab its units, and put them in this other game that has been thriving without the dead game's units.
Let's also fix (because obv. it's broken) this new game, because last time I checked, it's not exactly the same as this other dead game I love. This other dead game I love is exciting and epic, and exciting. It is very epic, with epic battles, and epic units. This other new game is just not epic, I'm sorry. It's not exciting or epic, either. So we have to fix it, because it's clearly broken.
On July 26 2012 03:58 fer wrote: I had this brilliant idea as well. Let's take a game that is arguably dead, grab its units, and put them in this other game that has been thriving without the dead game's units.
Let's also fix (because obv. it's broken) this new game, because last time I checked, it's not exactly the same as this other dead game I love. This other dead game I love is exciting and epic, and exciting. It is very epic, with epic battles, and epic units. This other new game is just not epic, I'm sorry. It's not exciting or epic, either. So we have to fix it, because it's clearly broken.
Bring back the lurker, restore the honour. 2012.
you figured out that the thread is about broodwar units in sc2?
Im so tired of listening to people say "If you want x unit , go play BW you scrub!!!" . I know DB was one of the idiots that said go play bw if you think its so great. You know what? This IS a sequel. It has STARCRAFT in its title ffs!! As of matter of fact, since this game is trying so hard NOT to be starcraft, it shouldn't be called starcraft...
On July 26 2012 04:50 hpTheGreat wrote: Im so tired of listening to people say "If you want x unit , go play BW you scrub!!!" . I know DB was one of the idiots that said go play bw if you think its so great. You know what? This IS a sequel. It has STARCRAFT in its title ffs!! As of matter of fact, since this game is trying so hard NOT to be starcraft, it shouldn't be called starcraft...
EDIT
id prefer starcraft 2 tried to be starcraft 2 and starcraft 1 stay starcraft 1. I agree with dustin browder, its still there , go play it.
Im glad they did not just remake sc1, because if they did. People would have grown bord of it really fast. And instead of people complaining about how bad sc2 is, they would be saying .. "all blizzard did was slap 3d graphics on the game and try to cash in again with no effort". Either way they come out like the bad guys.
why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
On July 26 2012 04:50 hpTheGreat wrote: Im so tired of listening to people say "If you want x unit , go play BW you scrub!!!" . I know DB was one of the idiots that said go play bw if you think its so great. You know what? This IS a sequel. It has STARCRAFT in its title ffs!! As of matter of fact, since this game is trying so hard NOT to be starcraft, it shouldn't be called starcraft...
EDIT
id prefer starcraft 2 tried to be starcraft 2 and starcraft 1 stay starcraft 1. I agree with dustin browder, its still there , go play it.
Im glad they did not just remake sc1, because if they did. People would have grown bord of it really fast. And instead of people complaining about how bad sc2 is, they would be saying .. "all blizzard did was slap 3d graphics on the game and try to cash in again with no effort". Either way they come out like the bad guys.
Okay a gaming sequel is suppose to be an improvement upon the original w/o altering the designs set by the predecessors but to build upon those pillars. See none of these talks would have happened if they introduced better system than the original.
Lol its like a car company still having critics saying that "Well I guess this drives is pretty smooth but man that one model they introduced a decade ago is still sweeter."
And oh if they just made Brood War in 3D, they whole S.Korean scene would have switched in a heartbeat and we would have already seen the game played at the highest level AND we would have new fans joining in. Really, its the best of both world. Make new fans and render the loyalist satisfied. Now we got to wait like another decade.
IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
Keeping sc2 unique is not really any reason to avoid re-introducing BW units.. the unit pathing is so good in sc2 that it is nothing like BW. Even if we were to copy paste every single unit from BW, it would still be nothing like BW.
Lurker would be an interesting unit, but what kind of a tech tree would suit them? Evolve from hydras? Hydras suck in this game.. evolved from roaches at lair tech I guess.
What I really want to say though is that it is in the best interest of the game to keep all units simple. Completely unlike what I've seen of HOTS so far. Introducing all sorts of technical herpderp units is only going to turn this game into a clusterfuck without equilibrium strategies with the result that winning single sets will be even more luck based than it already is.
To keep units simple, but to still have interesting units, we need brilliance. And brilliance is a characteristic blizzard has been woefully short on for the last several years.
I conclude that the best option most likely is to bring back broodwar units. Long live carriers lurkers and defilers! And replace vikings with wraith fighters and there's that whole carriers-suck-ass problem solved as well.
On July 26 2012 04:50 hpTheGreat wrote: Im so tired of listening to people say "If you want x unit , go play BW you scrub!!!" . I know DB was one of the idiots that said go play bw if you think its so great. You know what? This IS a sequel. It has STARCRAFT in its title ffs!! As of matter of fact, since this game is trying so hard NOT to be starcraft, it shouldn't be called starcraft...
EDIT
id prefer starcraft 2 tried to be starcraft 2 and starcraft 1 stay starcraft 1. I agree with dustin browder, its still there , go play it.
Im glad they did not just remake sc1, because if they did. People would have grown bord of it really fast. And instead of people complaining about how bad sc2 is, they would be saying .. "all blizzard did was slap 3d graphics on the game and try to cash in again with no effort". Either way they come out like the bad guys.
I don't think people would miss bw units near so much if SC2 units showed an understanding of how important unit handling was to make BW into such an competitive game as well as an excellent spectator experience. I'm actually not as convinced that SC2 is as easy for non-Starcraft players to view as people make out.
That and if units demonstrated a solid understanding of synergy. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having some sort of protective cover that allowed melee games to close the gap to remain viable late game against strong ranged, positional defence. (Dark swarm or mobile/ multiple cloaking fields.) There are so many interesting unit synergies that completely transforms the late game that I rarely see in SC2 beyond the big Vortex hit or miss.
On July 26 2012 05:13 Kontys wrote: Keeping sc2 unique is not really any reason to avoid re-introducing BW units.. the unit pathing is so good in sc2 that it is nothing like BW. Even if we were to copy paste every single unit from BW, it would still be nothing like BW.
Lurker would be an interesting unit, but what kind of a tech tree would suit them? Evolve from hydras? Hydras suck in this game.. evolved from roaches at lair tech I guess.
What I really want to say though is that it is in the best interest of the game to keep all units simple. Completely unlike what I've seen of HOTS so far. Introducing all sorts of technical herpderp units is only going to turn this game into a clusterfuck without equilibrium strategies with the result that winning single sets will be even more luck based than it already is.
To keep units simple, but to still have interesting units, we need brilliance. And brilliance is a characteristic blizzard has been woefully short on for the last several years.
I conclude that the best option most likely is to bring back broodwar units. Long live carriers lurkers and defilers! And replace vikings with wraith fighters and there's that whole carriers-suck-ass problem solved as well.
As long as they remove all theee banal units out of the game and get refreshing ones, I'm fine. Like the Viper, oh yeah that's one good unit that I would want to play with along with Hydras. Like use its tentacles and the Hydralisks rapes them from the back.
Or Stalkers/Force Field, ummm another sweet loving combos.
I can't really say anything for Terrans tbh lol. The Stim-Pull back-hold position marine micro isn't that impressive at all.
But what I feel is that WoL have done early Protoss game really well with cool units like Stalkers/Force Field and Pheonixs
But then at Tier 3, the race start to fall apart with Carriers and Collosi
Zergs were okay, I actually love Roaches (fav unit of the race). Bannelings is like 50/50 for me that none actually use it to ambush because it is more recommended to keep your guys close knit so its detonation use is underpowered.
Then Terran which is....the only innovation was that Thor could be build using SCV and Nukes can be used faster.
I don't get why people say "Keep SC1 as SC1 and SC2 as SC2" Why? Because you cannot play SC1 much anymore. Go into the client there are 5-15 games on the list(at least where I got on from). The theory behind "Keep SC1 as SC1 and SC2 as SC2" is that the better game will get more people. That isn't a good reason because people will naturally flock to SC2 because of the graphics, marketing, and hype, whereas BW look old and blocky. Until there is a BW with as much graphics, and marketing behind it that makes people want to hype it up it is an unfair battle to determine what is actually better or not.
As of late with the introduction of things like BF3 and this argument of HOTS and BW I've been wondering how much better games could be if game history and understanding classics like BF2142/2 and BW respectively by making them in a modern setting (much the same as musicians have to play music to fully understand it) would effect the result of the sequel.
Games being games, no one really ever knows what really makes the best possible game because it could apply different things to different people. Sometimes bugs make games what they are(IE Tribes), and sometimes the difficulty of the game is what makes the game the most enjoyable and then allows people to find comfort in little things like "What this unit sounds like". Simplicity and realism have over time been problematic in some cases and amazing in others, I think that now is the time that people need to start to seriously analyze games across all time periods to determine what unideal things of popular game made it the most popular.
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
I don't think you really thought through what you just wrote there.
The BW units in sc2 right now are the ones that are actually bringing excitement when they are controlled by the very best. What the fuck would TvZ be without Marines, Siege Tanks, Dropships, Ghosts, Zerglings, Mutalisks and Ultras? There is a reason TvZ is the best matchup in sc2 - because it's core is similar how TvZ was played in BW.
What are the best units when it comes to Protoss for you in sc2? I think Zealots and High Templar together with a Shuttle (Warp Prism) are like the only exciting with Protoss in sc2 (Blink stalkers can be cool too, an improvement over Dragoons for sure). Look at Oz vs Stephano on Entombed Valley when Oz went for a really BW-esque type of PvZ with alot of multipronged drops with Warp Prism together with zealots, high templars and dark templars. This combo is also what makes BW Protoss such an awesome fucking race. Is it so hard to understand why people would like say, have the Reaver which makes an awesome partner with a shuttle rather than the most hated unit ever, Colossi? It all makes even more sence to try out when we see how good TvZ, TvT and ZvP can be when they are played in a similar fashion how they are in BW.
Without BW units/concepts, what would sc2 even be today? But then again, I'm probably just a bw fanboy being nostalgic, right?
Clearly the devs on Diablo 3 did not want their game to become Dablo2: 3D. So they set about changing things to try and make the game appeal to a wider audience. We all know how well that went - the changed the formula and Diablo franchise ruined.
they did the same thing to World of Warcraft - the original was different in many ways than Wrath or Cata - they kept listening to the whiners and they kept changing things to streamline the experience, and make it accessible to more people. Rather than copy the dark atmosphere of WC2, they changed things and made it a cartoon land.
Now the same thing is happening to Starcraft - they are trying to change things to make them better instead of sticking to the tried and true formula. I really hope they don't end up ruining their last franchise.
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
Yes, but that's a different conversation.
On July 26 2012 05:09 Shebuha wrote: IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
TL polls are not exactly the most... unbiased source in the world. TL polls also would be strongly in favor of ditching rally mine, MBS, smart-cast, and many other things.
That doesn't make them right.
It should also be noted that this poll is effectively taken in ignorance, since very few people have ever used Swarm Hosts.
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
On July 26 2012 05:09 Shebuha wrote: IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
TL polls are not exactly the most... unbiased source in the world. TL polls also would be strongly in favor of ditching rally mine, MBS, smart-cast, and many other things.
That doesn't make them right.
It should also be noted that this poll is effectively taken in ignorance, since very few people have ever used Swarm Hosts.
Yeah, you are definitely right, I was just using that as an example to illustrate my point, that people are saying that they want things, and DB isn't giving it to them for some odd reason. Thank you for pointing that out! ^_^
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
Yes, but that's a different conversation.
On July 26 2012 05:09 Shebuha wrote: IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
TL polls are not exactly the most... unbiased source in the world. TL polls also would be strongly in favor of ditching rally mine, MBS, smart-cast, and many other things.
That doesn't make them right.
It should also be noted that this poll is effectively taken in ignorance, since very few people have ever used Swarm Hosts.
Yeah, you are definitely right, I was just using that as an example to illustrate my point, that people are saying that they want things, and DB isn't giving it to them for some odd reason. Thank you for pointing that out! ^_^
The problem you're not getting is the whole "for some odd reason" thing that doesn't make sense. There are very legitimate reasons why Blizzard does not design SC2 based on TL polls. It's not an "odd reason"; it's called common sense.
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
Yes, but that's a different conversation.
On July 26 2012 05:09 Shebuha wrote: IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
TL polls are not exactly the most... unbiased source in the world. TL polls also would be strongly in favor of ditching rally mine, MBS, smart-cast, and many other things.
That doesn't make them right.
It should also be noted that this poll is effectively taken in ignorance, since very few people have ever used Swarm Hosts.
Yeah, you are definitely right, I was just using that as an example to illustrate my point, that people are saying that they want things, and DB isn't giving it to them for some odd reason. Thank you for pointing that out! ^_^
The problem you're not getting is the whole "for some odd reason" thing that doesn't make sense. There are very legitimate reasons why Blizzard does not design SC2 based on TL polls. It's not an "odd reason"; it's called common sense.
My point is that it would be common sense to see what the people playing the game want rather than shrugging them off and saying, "go play the other game." I didn't say that they should design based on TL polls, that was an example of "a bunch of people... asking for BW units," and displays that it may be more liked than the Swarm Host (as you pointed out the bias).
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
Yes, but that's a different conversation.
On July 26 2012 05:09 Shebuha wrote: IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
TL polls are not exactly the most... unbiased source in the world. TL polls also would be strongly in favor of ditching rally mine, MBS, smart-cast, and many other things.
That doesn't make them right.
It should also be noted that this poll is effectively taken in ignorance, since very few people have ever used Swarm Hosts.
Yeah, you are definitely right, I was just using that as an example to illustrate my point, that people are saying that they want things, and DB isn't giving it to them for some odd reason. Thank you for pointing that out! ^_^
The problem you're not getting is the whole "for some odd reason" thing that doesn't make sense. There are very legitimate reasons why Blizzard does not design SC2 based on TL polls. It's not an "odd reason"; it's called common sense.
My point is that it would be common sense to see what the people playing the game want rather than shrugging them off and saying, "go play the other game." I didn't say that they should design based on TL polls, that was an example of "a bunch of people... asking for BW units," and displays that it may be more liked than the Swarm Host (as you pointed out the bias).
The issue is that TL isn't really a good representation of the general gaming public. Things like smartcasting might not be popular with high-master players but you get that no one in the lower leagues is complaining about it.
On July 26 2012 05:04 SuperYo1000 wrote: why would we downgrade? adding bw units would be boring. We know what they do. We have seen it before for past 10 years. Lets not be stuck on a game thats 14 years old
PS. Being a sequel doesnt mean its EXACT SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS...thats called an expansion
doesn't mean you should go backwards in game design. >_>
Yes, but that's a different conversation.
On July 26 2012 05:09 Shebuha wrote: IMO it doesn't make sense for Dustin Browder to say, "If you want BW units, go play BW," if a bunch of people playing his game are asking for BW units. In the thread here on TL the Lurker crushed the Swarm Host in every category (See: Lurker vs. Swarm Host), so obviously it's more liked than the Swarm Host. Why would a guy who's making a video game, who wants to make money, and therefore wants to appeal to the most people he can ignore the requests of his consumers?!?!?!
TL polls are not exactly the most... unbiased source in the world. TL polls also would be strongly in favor of ditching rally mine, MBS, smart-cast, and many other things.
That doesn't make them right.
It should also be noted that this poll is effectively taken in ignorance, since very few people have ever used Swarm Hosts.
Yeah, you are definitely right, I was just using that as an example to illustrate my point, that people are saying that they want things, and DB isn't giving it to them for some odd reason. Thank you for pointing that out! ^_^
The problem you're not getting is the whole "for some odd reason" thing that doesn't make sense. There are very legitimate reasons why Blizzard does not design SC2 based on TL polls. It's not an "odd reason"; it's called common sense.
My point is that it would be common sense to see what the people playing the game want rather than shrugging them off and saying, "go play the other game." I didn't say that they should design based on TL polls, that was an example of "a bunch of people... asking for BW units," and displays that it may be more liked than the Swarm Host (as you pointed out the bias).
The issue is that TL isn't really a good representation of the general gaming public. Things like smartcasting might not be popular with high-master players but you get that no one in the lower leagues is complaining about it.
EPT
)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PLpVn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DV5HE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e8R18.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/flehG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jUsCy.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/i6Hiq5-BgYQ/0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ULTyJUbQNOI/TaZtnmqqdvI/AAAAAAAAACU/fOt-w9jo5es/s1600/starcraftqwe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bLnpG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/g3e0v.jpg)
