| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
a: it's useless in terms of making the game more enjoyable and b: with the logic people are defending it with, one might as well create something like "at 11:25 if you type pronfbdsbuiohaiuhsadölksa22222222a b cWORLDOFWARCRAFTWRATHOFTHELICHKINGXD you will gain 10 more drones" It's nothing serious, it's stupid and doesnt in any way improve the joy of the game. | ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
| ||
|
Incomplet
United Kingdom1419 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
dynwar7
1983 Posts
| ||
|
wangstra
922 Posts
On August 24 2012 03:09 Embir wrote: Care to elaborate? And no, SC2 doesn't need those things, it needs more units for Z and P that benefit from good micro (like a marines). To deliberately make primitive UI and buggy mechanics is the worst possible way to balance game. And why is that? Because then game might be good to watching but sure as hell is not funny to play (to prove my point: outside of Korea BW wasn't wildly popular, nor gathered huge audience - on the contrary SC2 is a huge success on international scene). P.S. When I scan BW forum I still read posts that BW is such a wonderful game, but funnily enough there is also a lot of post where people ranting that there aren't many people to play. I'll go ahead and edit this post to clarify my point. To deliberately make primitive UI and buggy mechanics is the worst possible way to balance game. And why is that? Because then game might be good to watching but sure as hell is not funny to play (to prove my point: outside of Korea BW wasn't wildly popular, nor gathered huge audience - on the contrary SC2 is a huge success on international scene). You seem to be suggesting that BW wasn't wildly popular outside of Korea and failed to gain traction because it was not 'funny' to play (I imagine you meant fun) due in part to its primitive UI and buggy mechanics, something others have touted as requiring skill to use vs SC2 more automated functions. You then appear to proffer the success of SC2 as a demonstration to the contrary. My post was in response to that claim. It's dubious to suggest that SC2's popularity rests largely on its accessibility and improved UI and less APM intensive mechanics when many other factors are involved. Namely as I went to to say, the original SC cemented Blizzard's reputation as fastidious developer. SC2 was released after the organic growth of a community around the game and after Blizzard has exploded worldwide as a recognized publisher through its subsequent and popular releases, namely, WoW, War3, D2. On those factors alone, SC2 would be a much larger and widely known game than SC original could have ever aspired to. That in itself doesn't demonstrate on its own that SC2 was more fun to play as per the reasons you appeared to be suggesting. You may call me a zealot, I prefer Zerg myself but I, like a good many here, really only got into the scene because of SC2. But I don't need to be in love with SC BW to not see the reject your premise. I'll admit my original post was a bit crude. But what the hell. And common, who are you trying to kid. A game that's 10+ years old and you're surprised that people aren't finding as many people to play with/against? | ||
|
Embir
Poland567 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:57 wangstra wrote: What kind of nonsense is this? SC was released in 1998 and cemented Blizzard's reputation and ensured the attention given to its subsequent releases. The scene grew organically since then. Naturally SC2 released after games like WOW, D2, etc by the same name would be wildly more popular and vernacular. That in itself certainly holds no candle to elucidate anyone as to its quality vs BW. To simply pass on the history that has brought us here is to demonstrate to the dubiousness of your wits. I wonder if you will get at least warning, or TL is still mild for BW insane zealots. As for now crawl back into BW forums, this is SC2 section - don't want to post with people like you. Also not even once in my post I explicitly said BW is inferior to SC2. Back to topic: BW outside of Korea didn't build very big scene, game was great commercial succes and one of the greatest and most innovative titles, for sure. In Korea of course it became something big and phenomenal. And SC2 is a great game, it has nothing to do with BW heritage as of now. If game was shit tournaments wouldn't sustain audience, nor the hype for those past 2 years. Also it is worth noting that foreigner scene just exploded - it wasn't the case with BW. Also despite new SC2, in Korea, till now, still ruled BW, so your theory how newer titles seems more attractive doesnt holds. I got one simple explanation for this fact: for foreigners SC2 got more appeal. It has nothing to do which one of the games is better, because it is subjective matter. It is just the way it is. I guess it has to do with SC2 having good match making system, better graphics and easier and better UI, overall being just great game. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
| ||
|
GiantRobot
Germany9 Posts
| ||
|
askmc70
United States722 Posts
On September 10 2012 22:38 GiantRobot wrote: I really hope this gets patched. I don´t want to get back to brood war, where the skill was all about the mechanics. This differs the high skilled people from the very high skilled people? If skill is what you define as who can click the fastest...the game should not be about APM, you should focus on the other things. Apm is not just defined as clicking the fastest, what would you like the game to be? just a moving army towards another army? -_-. A person who has better mechanics should win against another person who is not as good. | ||
|
PanzerElite
540 Posts
On September 10 2012 22:38 GiantRobot wrote: I really hope this gets patched. I don´t want to get back to brood war, where the skill was all about the mechanics. This differs the high skilled people from the very high skilled people? If skill is what you define as who can click the fastest...the game should not be about APM, you should focus on the other things. Starcraft is about mechanics, if you want strategy you can buy other games like total war for example. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On September 10 2012 22:55 PanzerElite wrote: Starcraft is about mechanics, if you want strategy you can buy other games like total war for example. lol, no. Sc was about mechanics, sc2 is not. And your idea is kinda hilarious, rephrasing: sc2 is a strategy game, but if you want strategy buy other games" | ||
|
Aphod
United States72 Posts
On September 10 2012 23:04 Cheerio wrote: lol, no. Sc was about mechanics, sc2 is not. And your idea is kinda hilarious, rephrasing: sc2 is a strategy game, but if you want strategy buy other games" ^This. Keeping this in the game wouldn't be a bad thing per se, but it would not be keeping with Blizzard's theme of cutting down the attention required for menial bullshit like hand-rallying every probe, so that people can focus more on what build they're using and army management. This game has become more about decision making than your ability to do some menial task faster than the other guy, and I don't see why Blizzard would leave in something that conflicts with that. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9443 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: as someone earlier stated, keeping this mineral patch boost is stupid because a: it's useless in terms of making the game more enjoyable and b: with the logic people are defending it with, one might as well create something like "at 11:25 if you type pronfbdsbuiohaiuhsadölksa22222222a b cWORLDOFWARCRAFTWRATHOFTHELICHKINGXD you will gain 10 more drones" It's nothing serious, it's stupid and doesnt in any way improve the joy of the game. this. ppl are stupid and do not realize why BW was popular. BW was popular because of good unit design. Not because of no MBS or other stupid mechanics. | ||
|
mrRoflpwn
United States2618 Posts
| ||
|
X3GoldDot
Malaysia3840 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On September 10 2012 23:24 X3GoldDot wrote: its just not worth it. 2 workers for how long? 60 seconds? That is around 90 minerals mined with no boosting and around 94 with boosting. are ppl seriosly afraid since they have such shit apm about this thing? work up guys, everyone should aim to do this to 2 workers AT LEAST, dont be pussies and say this game aint about mechanics | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8312 Posts
On September 11 2012 00:26 Cheerio wrote: its just not worth it. 2 workers for how long? 60 seconds? That is around 90 minerals mined with no boosting and around 94 with boosting. Might want to re-think your math there. If each of them make one additional trip it's 10 minerals. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On September 11 2012 00:28 TheDougler wrote: Might want to re-think your math there. If each of them make one additional trip it's 10 minerals. my math is all right, it's the effectiveness of boosting that is in question. I stand by 4-5%, you assume about 11% | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PiG Daily
Maru vs Serral
herO vs Classic
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
Bombastic Starleague
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
