| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On December 28 2012 22:36 starfinder wrote: because it's BW with 3D+1080P+TrueColor,and a noob like me can macro jaedong like  but it isn't as nice and we like 640x480:D | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On December 29 2012 03:37 EmailFDP wrote: Nobody will ask to Maverck "nerf lurker! they are so strong against my marines". now that you mention it, on EU lurkers seem to have 200hp rather than 125 other than that everything is fine | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On December 29 2012 01:47 Markwerf wrote: stop trying to recreate BW really.. Sure BW was a better game than sc2 and many of that comes down to flaws in the game working out in a lucky way. Still BW also has TONS of terrible aspects that 1) make it terrible for today's players and 2) can just be improved upon on general. BW is spectator friendly because the controls are absolutely archaic: unit selection cap, dodgy pathing and no smart casting balance the game in an interesting way because they all work against deathball play. You don't want to mass too many casters in BW because you can't use them effectively anyway, you don't want massive groups of mutalisk because it's impossible to micro etc... However those controls are just a pain in the ass to play with and the game is determined by mechanics far too much. Overall sc2 is imo just a better game in many aspects. More strategy diversity, less buggyness, more intuitive controls and even more differences between the races. Even less 'dead' units too. There are just a couple big flaws in sc2 which hamper the game immensely making it worse than BW. Macro limited to too few bases perhaps, deathball play too present and the game being too passive on a whole. These can be fixed in other ways though by simple retooling the existing units and making good additions. Unfortunately that's not happening in HotS but the idea of sc2 is sound, the execution is just poor. It could be improved to be vastly better than BW though because to be honest, BW was only big in korea.. I'll spoiler this since I do not want to go into sc2 vs BW, but I just want to point my thoughts out + Show Spoiler + how can you be any more wrong about the situation, not only do you not provide any points other than the common stereotypes of "scbw has terrible ui", you also seem to blindfolded that starcraft 2 can get fixed by a few patches for units when it's fundamentally broken as a game in whole. The reason scbw is more interesting to not only watch, but to play is because of the amount of limited control you have when you are playing the game. SC2 gives you infinitely more control over your army, your production, your worker management, to the point where almost everyone does the same thing, and everyone has the same management. I cannot see an average joe sc2 zerg controlling 200/200 army of ultralisks, defilers, zerglings and lurkers like they can do with one control key in starcraft2. I cannot see them control 10 defilers to constantly cast swarm without having their macro suffer. Is that not the entire point? The more supply your army is, the harder it should get for you and the more actions required for you to control it while still managing your economy and production. The more production you have, the more time it should take you to go through all of the buildings. The more bases you have, the better you have to control your mineral and gas count because you'll have more and more income per base. The more bases you have, the harder it gets for you to control your own army due to the actions required for defense. These are just one of the few characteristics that BW has which starcraft2 does not. There are abilities in starcraft broodwar that are imbalanced and would, with starcraft2's design, completely break the game. However, most of the ability lies within the player AND his opponent to deal with the spells, making it two sided and leaves a lot more room for error. To me, this type of design seems to have a very metodical, logical approach, yet still maintains the fun spirit of the game. As lalush has pointed out, in starcraft2 you almost never need to go above 3 base (except zerg because of the gases). Not only does that narrow down the amount of options that you have to break your enemy's defense, but because of macro simplicity (automining, having many production buildings in same unit group, controling your entire army with just few keystrokes) AND because of the fact that you don't feel pressured to take more bases there is little space for you to excel at something in which your opponent doesn't, leaving them only with a few routes. Two of them are micro and unit control. But now to add some hypocrisy, blizzard has introduced two abilities that have been broken since the beginning of starcraft2, forcefields and fungal growth. When one plays against such spells, he can only hope that his opponent makes mistakes as he will be UNABLE to micro against them due to their mechanics. And then one can ask himself "why is the game so passive?". Talking about strategy of choice, from pure observation almost every zerg on world goes for 3 hatch with queens play as anything else is pointless. This build clearly gives you a big advantage over your opponent, therefore doing any all ins is pointless as it is a risk that can put you behind (ironically, not always the case as in TvZ it can put zerg ahead if terran goes for banshee hellion play). So what does this leave you with? A swarm of faceless players. Not only do all zergs play the same, since terrans cannot all in zerg anymore, it leaves them with less options than fingers on hand. So much for the strategy variation. There are only a few players that are exciting to watch and even that is because of their PAST innovations (marineking's marine split, stephano's crazy macro and engagements, MVP's tactical brilliance). One year later, many more players are mechanically on par with them. Are players truly improving that rapidly or is there something else involved here? So what does this mean for the future professionals? Breakthroughs in skill are definitely much less probable than in bw because of the softcap that starcraft2 has right now, and it won't change in HoTS either. Units come and go, fundamental problems and design issues will stay here until blizzard redesigns their philosophy. only when a post like this appears do I realize the sheer brilliance that old blizzard put into this game along with some happy accidents edit: talking about the 3 base play, worst of it all is that almost every map is the same and centered around you getting 3 bases without any reprecussions | ||
|
dutchfriese
2554 Posts
On December 29 2012 04:03 EonuS wrote: I'll spoiler this since I do not want to go into sc2 vs BW, but I just want to point my thoughts out + Show Spoiler + how can you be any more wrong about the situation, not only do you not provide any points other than the common stereotypes of "scbw has terrible ui", you also seem to blindfolded that starcraft 2 can get fixed by a few patches for units when it's fundamentally broken as a game in whole. The reason scbw is more interesting to not only watch, but to play is because of the amount of limited control you have when you are playing the game. SC2 gives you infinitely more control over your army, your production, your worker management, to the point where almost everyone does the same thing, and everyone has the same management. I cannot see an average joe sc2 zerg controlling 200/200 army of ultralisks, defilers, zerglings and lurkers like they can do with one control key in starcraft2. I cannot see them control 10 defilers to constantly cast swarm without having their macro suffer. Is that not the entire point? The more supply your army is, the harder it should get for you and the more actions required for you to control it while still managing your economy and production. The more production you have, the more time it should take you to go through all of the buildings. The more bases you have, the better you have to control your mineral and gas count because you'll have more and more income per base. The more bases you have, the harder it gets for you to control your own army due to the actions required for defense. These are just one of the few characteristics that BW has which starcraft2 does not. There are abilities in starcraft broodwar that are imbalanced and would, with starcraft2's design, completely break the game. However, most of the ability lies within the player AND his opponent to deal with the spells, making it two sided and leaves a lot more room for error. To me, this type of design seems to have a very metodical, logical approach, yet still maintains the fun spirit of the game. As lalush has pointed out, in starcraft2 you almost never need to go above 3 base (except zerg because of the gases). Not only does that narrow down the amount of options that you have to break your enemy's defense, but because of macro simplicity (automining, having many production buildings in same unit group, controling your entire army with just few keystrokes) AND because of the fact that you don't feel pressured to take more bases there is little space for you to excel at something in which your opponent doesn't, leaving them only with a few routes. Two of them are micro and unit control. But now to add some hypocrisy, blizzard has introduced two abilities that have been broken since the beginning of starcraft2, forcefields and fungal growth. When one plays against such spells, he can only hope that his opponent makes mistakes as he will be UNABLE to micro against them due to their mechanics. And then one can ask himself "why is the game so passive?". Talking about strategy of choice, from pure observation almost every zerg on world goes for 3 hatch with queens play as anything else is pointless. This build clearly gives you a big advantage over your opponent, therefore doing any all ins is pointless as it is a risk that can put you behind (ironically, not always the case as in TvZ it can put zerg ahead if terran goes for banshee hellion play). So what does this leave you with? A swarm of faceless players. Not only do all zergs play the same, since terrans cannot all in zerg anymore, it leaves them with less options than fingers on hand. So much for the strategy variation. There are only a few players that are exciting to watch and even that is because of their PAST innovations (marineking's marine split, stephano's crazy macro and engagements, MVP's tactical brilliance). One year later, many more players are mechanically on par with them. Are players truly improving that rapidly or is there something else involved here? So what does this mean for the future professionals? Breakthroughs in skill are definitely much less probable than in bw because of the softcap that starcraft2 has right now, and it won't change in HoTS either. Units come and go, fundamental problems and design issues will stay here until blizzard redesigns their philosophy. only when a post like this appears do I realize the sheer brilliance that old blizzard put into this game along with some happy accidents edit: talking about the 3 base play, worst of it all is that almost every map is the same and centered around you getting 3 bases without any reprecussions It seems like there is a simple solution; increase the supply cap. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Thanks Maverick for putting all the hours into this project. I hope that your mod will find many players | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
It seems like there is a simple solution; increase the supply cap. I agree, relative to broodwar, starcraft2 supply cap is really small, not only do you have more workers per base but the units in general cost more supply than in broodwar, but blizzard always falls back to "oh my god we're in 2012, we need to design a game for people with terrible computers", almost pointless to communicate with them. This would be a step in right direction but sounds scary considering broodlord/infestor could be amassed to even bigger numbers than before (considering zerg is always a base ahead to other two) | ||
|
dutchfriese
2554 Posts
On December 29 2012 04:20 EonuS wrote: I agree, relative to broodwar, starcraft2 supply cap is really small, not only do you have more workers per base but the units in general cost more supply than in broodwar, but blizzard always falls back to "oh my god we're in 2012, we need to design a game for people with terrible computers", almost pointless to communicate with them. This would be a step in right direction but sounds scary considering broodlord/infestor could be amassed to even bigger numbers than before (considering zerg is always a base ahead to other two) It's true that the solution isn't as simple as I previously suggested, but it would be interesting to see the game starting with 12 workers and a 300+ supply though. I completely agree 200 is way too low with multiple building groups and the ability to select infinity units. I really wish blizzard would use more resources on developing sc2 but unfortunately sc2 has to compete with WoWcrack... | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10165 Posts
Not like a give a damn, i wouldn't play that control group caps /shrug. | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On December 29 2012 04:29 dutchfriese wrote: It's true that the solution isn't as simple as I previously suggested, but it would be interesting to see the game starting with 12 workers and a 300+ supply though. I completely agree 200 is way too low with multiple building groups and the ability to select infinity units. I really wish blizzard would use more resources on developing sc2 but unfortunately sc2 has to compete with WoWcrack... that would not help with anything, having 12 workers to begin with just speeds up the situation rather than slows it down. Instead of making situation better you're just amplfying the numbers that way. | ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8096 Posts
On December 29 2012 04:32 Godwrath wrote: How 300 supply is an option ? The problem you guys are speaking about isn't the supply, it's the amount of units you can control on single groups (one to infinite). Adding 100 more supply would not magically solve that. Not like a give a damn, i wouldn't play that control group caps /shrug. Actually the maximum number of units you can have in one control group is 255, at least get your facts correct if you're going to make claims about unit selection. | ||
|
dutchfriese
2554 Posts
On December 29 2012 04:41 EonuS wrote: that would not help with anything, having 12 workers to begin with just speeds up the situation rather than slows it down. Instead of making situation better you're just amplfying the numbers that way. But it would allow players to enter the end game much faster. The idea would be solely for entertainment purposes. On December 29 2012 04:32 Godwrath wrote: How 300 supply is an option ? The problem you guys are speaking about isn't the supply, it's the amount of units you can control on single groups (one to infinite). Adding 100 more supply would not magically solve that. Not like a give a damn, i wouldn't play that control group caps /shrug. It would create more opportunities to micro more units and increase the skill ceiling. That would be the goal. | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
Bw is ofc a much better game than Sc2, but it was because of the huge micro capabilities, the unit interactions and the amazing balance that allowed back and forth games (plus a much lower dps that allows more interesting fights, and more micro compared to the retarded insane sc2 dps). But why set the old engine limitations and maps back? I 'll love to see a Sc2 mod with just Sc2 stuff, but with Bw dps, bw micro capabilities, and best units of both worlds (eg: infestor removed as a start). That would be really really amazing. | ||
|
thezanursic
5504 Posts
On December 29 2012 01:47 Markwerf wrote: Overall sc2 is imo just a better game in many aspects. More strategy diversity, less buggyness, more intuitive controls and even more differences between the races. Even less 'dead' units too. There are just a couple big flaws in sc2 which hamper the game immensely making it worse than BW. Macro limited to too few bases perhaps, deathball play too present and the game being too passive on a whole. These can be fixed in other ways though by simple retooling the existing units and making good additions. Unfortunately that's not happening in HotS but the idea of sc2 is sound, the execution is just poor. It could be improved to be vastly better than BW though because to be honest, BW was only big in korea.. - More strategy diversity *COUGH* *COUGH* Are we talking about the same game? Did you even play BW so much strategy compared to SC2. I guess you could mean the wide array of strategies that were viable over the time of SC2, but if you really look at it only one or two things have been viable at a time and don't give me the bullshit of things being undiscovered because the majority of evolution and change of strategy was due to patch changes. If you look at the metagame right now and compare it to brood wars it's as shallow as a pond compared to a lake. - Dead units. There are no dead units in BW every unit is used except for infested terran and scout I guess and scouts still have use if you do 12 nexx on in-base map and you go for a carrier rush which is viable you need a couple scouts to force the terran to build goliaths so that your dragoons can break the contain because he has less tanks because of the lesser gas investment. The scout has a VERY limited role, but it can be used you can also do a semi-viable 3 gate goon scout all-in vs zerg. And Infested terrans OBVIOUSLY can't be used in any match up except for TvZ and they are very hard to get to OBVIOUSLY they are kind of like the Mothership of BW except that Mothership is actually used even though in theory it shouldn't be except for Holy World ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/204_Holy%20World.jpg) *Note: It has a neutral command center that can be infested* What other units could be *dead* well: -Ghosts get used for Lockdown , emping and nuking -Battlecruisers are often times used in late lategame TvT and TvZ -Valkyrie is used effectively in the Fantasy build -Dark Archons are seldom used in PvZ and in extremly rare situations in PvP (Feedback) -The queens are very viable as was shown in the last two years before KESPAs abandonment of BW Literally every unit can have a use in BW if they are used in the correct situation. There are match ups where you don't see certain units, but it's the same in SC2 even more so if you ask me. I'm going to cover one more thing because everything else was already covered on the previous page when people were responding to your delusional and non-understanding comparison of the two games and that is the part where you said that the issues of SC2 can be fixed and it can be made better than BW now in theory it can be, but I'm not talking about changing how specific units function I'm talking about changing how ALL units behave in terms of pathing, certain units playing bigger roles with a drawback (Requiring babysitting to be effective AKA APM *Removing the collosus and adding the Reaver would probably be the first step in the right direction etc etc) | ||
|
purakushi
United States3303 Posts
Friendly note to all: Be sure to "Create" and not "Join", so you can set either BW or SC2 mode (3 customisable settings). | ||
|
Rustedlotus
12 Posts
| ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
| ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On December 29 2012 01:47 Markwerf wrote: stop trying to recreate BW really.. Sure BW was a better game than sc2 and many of that comes down to flaws in the game working out in a lucky way. Still BW also has TONS of terrible aspects that 1) make it terrible for today's players and 2) can just be improved upon on general. BW is spectator friendly because the controls are absolutely archaic: unit selection cap, dodgy pathing and no smart casting balance the game in an interesting way because they all work against deathball play. You don't want to mass too many casters in BW because you can't use them effectively anyway, you don't want massive groups of mutalisk because it's impossible to micro etc... However those controls are just a pain in the ass to play with and the game is determined by mechanics far too much. Overall sc2 is imo just a better game in many aspects. More strategy diversity, less buggyness, more intuitive controls and even more differences between the races. Even less 'dead' units too. There are just a couple big flaws in sc2 which hamper the game immensely making it worse than BW. Macro limited to too few bases perhaps, deathball play too present and the game being too passive on a whole. These can be fixed in other ways though by simple retooling the existing units and making good additions. Unfortunately that's not happening in HotS but the idea of sc2 is sound, the execution is just poor. It could be improved to be vastly better than BW though because to be honest, BW was only big in korea.. Why are you telling someone what to do | ||
|
GhostKorean
United States2330 Posts
On December 29 2012 03:51 sabas123 wrote: but it isn't as nice and we like 640x480:D 640x480 fucks with your mouse sensitivity and there are a whole mess of other annoying shit | ||
|
movac
Canada494 Posts
| ||
|
awwnuts07
United States621 Posts
BTW, I'm assuming most people participating in the mod are BW iccup players, but are there any, like me, who started with SC2 and are now giving SC2BW a go? If so, are you playing with pure BW settings, SC2 settings, or a mix of both? Personally, I have auto-mine turned, but like having unlimited unit/building selection turned off. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g11563 Liquid`RaSZi1449 Day[9].tv1254 shahzam671 C9.Mang0308 XaKoH  115Maynarde105 SteadfastSC49 Mew2King36 |
|
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Cure vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Percival vs Classic
ByuN vs Rogue
OSC
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Replay Cast
GSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
