EPTThe whole game going slower would fix most of the problems but units needs redesigns and big changes too. We all know what it is now is basically what its always to be.
StarCraft 2: What's The Problem - Page 33
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
The whole game going slower would fix most of the problems but units needs redesigns and big changes too. We all know what it is now is basically what its always to be. | ||
|
MostGroce
United States104 Posts
| ||
|
SpeghettiJoe
21 Posts
On September 29 2013 02:40 snakeeyez wrote: I always thought the big problem with SC 2 was just hard counters and just the speed of the game whether its from higher damage or whatever its from. Things like buildings and units just die way to fast to micro anything where in BW you had time because everything happened much slower giving a good player room to stand out. You can debate why Sc 2 is so much faster but bases die in seconds if a drop shows up and by the time you get back you lost The whole game going slower would fix most of the problems but units needs redesigns and big changes too. We all know what it is now is basically what its always to be. Yeah, deathball is too strong in SC2 and just melts everything. No time to recover. BW had less deathballs so this didn't happen as much. | ||
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On September 27 2013 15:22 BlackPanther wrote: Sounds about right. A lot of the stuff that made SC2 fun has been nerfed out of existence/removed from the game in the name of balance, and it has left us a game with far less variety than it used to have. You know what makes Starcraft entertaining for viewers? This kinda shit. We don't see this anymore in HotS. If only we could go back to pre-May 2012 WoL I would play the game far more than I do now. Before the stupid queen patch and all of the issues that have resulted because of that patch since then that screwed up WoL and that the SC2 has never really recovered from. | ||
|
jinsanity
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On September 29 2013 13:37 jinsanity wrote: Brood war was even more completely dominated by Korean players, yet it was still so popular. Why? "Dominated by" is completely irrelevant when it comes to popularity ... unless you are "driven by national pride". The only thing that counts is entertainment and BW had several advantages over SC2: - battles between maxed armies arent over in a few seconds - players DONT have all upgrades after 10-15 minutes (which is good, because it still leaves progression for later in the game) - microing units in a battle to save them or use them more efficiently actually made sense - there are A LOT of very exciting and locally overpowered attacks and abilities which are great to watch and dont destabilize racial balance like the Vortex (or rather the Archon toilet) did in SC2. In SC2 all those things had to be/would have to be nerfed because they would be too strong with the tightly packed clumps of armies in SC2. - there was a defenders advantage in BW and there is an attackers advantage in SC2 - there were no early- and mid-game choke-point-bypass-abilities apart from shuttles, so defending a choke point was actually an advantage - high ground advantage BW also had a fantastic single player story which was full of betrayals and tragic elements compared to the rather badly written one in SC2. As TotalBiscuit said ... Mengsk as a villain was perfect and they had to replace him with some unknown black hole which probably only a handful of living beings actually see as a future threat. BW could be played for fun in a FFA and the "UI hardships" (combined with the defenders advantage) worked as an equalizer between slightly different skill levels, so you could actually play with friends of different skill levels and still have fun. An 8 player FFA in SC2 will be totally dominated by the best player who can probably take out others most easily by simply overrunning them with more stuff and an a-move. SC2 threw too many "hard things" out the window and the devs failed to realize that "no smartcast" actually meant that you have to have SKILL to use a caster (I certainly didnt have that in BW) and they simply replaced it with "ez-mode mass units" and expect that more deaths and bigger explosions would compensate for that. They were wrong just as movie producers are who think that a bigger special effects budget will automatically result in a better sequel to a good movie. They only needed a good story and a handful of actors to make a thrilling duel in "High Noon" and Hitchcock also said that you create more suspense in a viewer if you DONT show a threat. LESS is MORE ... and Browder and his team totally failed to understand that. SC2 has been designed for todays lazy kids who have the attention span of a goldfish (which actually is 3 seconds) and who are too lazy to control more than one group of units. The sacrifices made for this have certain consequences and "going back" is not going to be easy, because Blizzard trained their player base to lazy-mode very well. They even have people defend that crap as "improvements due to todays technology" ... even when it is a lie, because many RTS had unlimited unit control back in the day. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 29 2013 15:10 Rabiator wrote: "Dominated by" is completely irrelevant when it comes to popularity ... unless you are "driven by national pride". The only thing that counts is entertainment and BW had several advantages over SC2: - battles between maxed armies arent over in a few seconds - players DONT have all upgrades after 10-15 minutes (which is good, because it still leaves progression for later in the game) - microing units in a battle to save them or use them more efficiently actually made sense - there are A LOT of very exciting and locally overpowered attacks and abilities which are great to watch and dont destabilize racial balance like the Vortex (or rather the Archon toilet) did in SC2. In SC2 all those things had to be/would have to be nerfed because they would be too strong with the tightly packed clumps of armies in SC2. - there was a defenders advantage in BW and there is an attackers advantage in SC2 - there were no early- and mid-game choke-point-bypass-abilities apart from shuttles, so defending a choke point was actually an advantage - high ground advantage BW also had a fantastic single player story which was full of betrayals and tragic elements compared to the rather badly written one in SC2. As TotalBiscuit said ... Mengsk as a villain was perfect and they had to replace him with some unknown black hole which probably only a handful of living beings actually see as a future threat. BW could be played for fun in a FFA and the "UI hardships" (combined with the defenders advantage) worked as an equalizer between slightly different skill levels, so you could actually play with friends of different skill levels and still have fun. An 8 player FFA in SC2 will be totally dominated by the best player who can probably take out others most easily by simply overrunning them with more stuff and an a-move. SC2 threw too many "hard things" out the window and the devs failed to realize that "no smartcast" actually meant that you have to have SKILL to use a caster (I certainly didnt have that in BW) and they simply replaced it with "ez-mode mass units" and expect that more deaths and bigger explosions would compensate for that. They were wrong just as movie producers are who think that a bigger special effects budget will automatically result in a better sequel to a good movie. They only needed a good story and a handful of actors to make a thrilling duel in "High Noon" and Hitchcock also said that you create more suspense in a viewer if you DONT show a threat. LESS is MORE ... and Browder and his team totally failed to understand that. SC2 has been designed for todays lazy kids who have the attention span of a goldfish (which actually is 3 seconds) and who are too lazy to control more than one group of units. The sacrifices made for this have certain consequences and "going back" is not going to be easy, because Blizzard trained their player base to lazy-mode very well. They even have people defend that crap as "improvements due to todays technology" ... even when it is a lie, because many RTS had unlimited unit control back in the day. Well, those kids have still one thing up to you. Their thoughtprocesses branch out and don't just reboot when someone discusses with them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255254¤tpage=748#14944 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=429715¤tpage=32#634 | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:03 Big J wrote: Well, those kids have still one thing up to you. Their thoughtprocesses branch out and don't just reboot when someone discusses with them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255254¤tpage=748#14944 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=429715¤tpage=32#634 Thanks a lot ... especially for that "average BW picture" paired by an "average SC2 Marine clump". You exactly prove my point, because you take a "below average" distribution from SC2 and compare it to an "above average" distribution in BW. That example from BW is as close to the maximum density achieveable in that game while the SC2 example is a really miserable small army for SC2 economy. In any case it is the THEORETICAL MAXIMUM which can be achieved that counts and not your flawed examples. Do you deny that the unit density in SC2 CAN BE a lot higher than in BW? Do you deny that the armies in SC2 are usually MUCH larger and more concentrated due to the higher economy? Honestly you should stop fooling yourself and accept the fact of math. Sure enough you *could* clump up Marines pretty tightly in BW, but that takes MICRO and is punishable due to "locally overpowered" abilities and attacks like Lurkers, Siege Tanks, Psi Storm, Reaver, ... That is also a part of the defenders advantage. I wont bother looking up a picture of "half a screen full of Marines", because that is just too common. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:26 Rabiator wrote: Thanks a lot ... especially for that "average BW picture" paired by an "average SC2 Marine clump". You exactly prove my point, because you take a "below average" distribution from SC2 and compare it to an "above average" distribution in BW. That example from BW is as close to the maximum density achieveable in that game while the SC2 example is a really miserable small army for SC2 economy. In any case it is the THEORETICAL MAXIMUM which can be achieved that counts and not your flawed examples. Do you deny that the unit density in SC2 CAN BE a lot higher than in BW? Do you deny that the armies in SC2 are usually MUCH larger and more concentrated due to the higher economy? Honestly you should stop fooling yourself and accept the fact of math. Sure enough you *could* clump up Marines pretty tightly in BW, but that takes MICRO and is punishable due to "locally overpowered" abilities and attacks like Lurkers, Siege Tanks, Psi Storm, Reaver, ... That is also a part of the defenders advantage. I wont bother looking up a picture of "half a screen full of Marines", because that is just too common. Guys, i suggest you to ignore this wise man, since all he does is repeat his favorite mantra. | ||
|
foreign2
Germany20 Posts
the gameplay: -make macro easier with worker collecting more ressources or less workers needed or auto build worker/units -battles should last longer and people should be able to win with a smaller army - usualy you know the winner even before the fight has started. -make the game more fun and less apm intense - i've played a lot of games but sc2 is too exhausting: you can lose an entire game by 1 misstake. But the biggest point is that compared to other games this game becomes more and more exhausting when you improve. the battlenet -make the chat become the start screen -force clans to have at least 10 members to be created because every idiot has a clan tag and it's nothing special -make profiles like in warcraft3 were player actually can bring a personal touch into the game and you don't have to click 3 times bevore you can see stats | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:26 Rabiator wrote: Thanks a lot ... especially for that "average BW picture" paired by an "average SC2 Marine clump". You exactly prove my point, because you take a "below average" distribution from SC2 and compare it to an "above average" distribution in BW. That example from BW is as close to the maximum density achieveable in that game while the SC2 example is a really miserable small army for SC2 economy. In any case it is the THEORETICAL MAXIMUM which can be achieved that counts and not your flawed examples. Do you deny that the unit density in SC2 CAN BE a lot higher than in BW? Do you deny that the armies in SC2 are usually MUCH larger and more concentrated due to the higher economy? Honestly you should stop fooling yourself and accept the fact of math. Sure enough you *could* clump up Marines pretty tightly in BW, but that takes MICRO and is punishable due to "locally overpowered" abilities and attacks like Lurkers, Siege Tanks, Psi Storm, Reaver, ... That is also a part of the defenders advantage. I wont bother looking up a picture of "half a screen full of Marines", because that is just too common. You're putting words in my mouth. Those pictures are not meant to show "average scenarios". You claim that in Broodwar you don't get those mass marine > mass dragoon scenarios and therefore marines are not as strong. I countered with the picture that shows that you can get such compositions anytime you want to aim for them. Just that you don't in TvP and TvT because marines suck there. It's funny that you call the army "miserably small" in the SC2 picture, because INnoVation is at 195supply when it was taken. The picture shows that roughly half of his army supply (~120 overall) is attacking at this point, which is standard TvZ gameplay, while the other half of the supply goes to units that are in production and units that are being collectet at home for the next push or on the rally. To your questions In any case it is the THEORETICAL MAXIMUM which can be achieved that counts and not your flawed examples. 1a) Yes, I deny that unit density in SC2 CAN BE a lot higher than in BW when we talk about THEORETICAL MAXIMUM. In BW there are tricks (also for ground units) that allow you to stack units into each other, making it THEORETICALLY possible to have 600 units sharing the space of one small unit. 1b) Well, as I believe the red quote is complete and utter bullshit, the interesting part is not what can theoretically be achieved but what is humanly possible, usual gameplay, I'm gonna answer a similar question that actually makes sense: Do I believe that the unit density in Starcraft 2 is usually higher than in Broodwar? Yes, I do believe that. And it often makes for bad gameplay especially when air units and Colossi are part of a main army and mobile compositions can stack into certain positions that become unbreakable too easily. Yet, it is not bad in itself. Stacking Air Units was very common in Broodwar and often actually quite a great strategy, though I do believe that in the rare but possible scenarios when massive Carrier and Battlecruiser armies could stack 72supply into tiny spaces, it could also get problematic. However, I don't believe it generally makes for bad gameplay. Banelings, mines, marines, zergling, tank, infestor, ultralisk... interactions are highly entertaining because of the unit density. The quest of making the game should be to keep those alive and make other interactions equally interesting. 2) No, I don't deny that they are usually larger. Yes, I do deny that economy is the sole reason for this, a lot of it is gameplay related. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of 3base maxouts - though 4th mining bases are superimportant and this critic is outdated, the core of it still stands true. Expanding further and spreading thinner is not important enough for the game. However, I don't believe it's only an economy problem. All 3mirror matches rely hugely upon what happens under maxed economy and often feature much smaller armies for very long periods of time. Similarily for other matchups. The conclusion is that the actual interactions of races/units influence the size of the armies in usual gameplay a lot and "economy in itself" is not the "sole reason" for this. Nor is it inherently bad when armies are bigger and reached faster than in Broodwar. I'm not fooling myself, and I think I have answered your "math" more than sufficient in 1a). You can unclump units just as much or more than in Broodwar in SC2. And it's a fact that this usually happens in nearly any combat and it is one of the most basic, important and interesting Micro relations we have in Starcraft (be it BW or SC2). Well, I could look one of those pictures up if I wanted. The thing is, it is not interesting to see half a screen of Marines (or usually MMM) standing somewhere for your arguement. You say that such units are so strong in combat because of the unit density. And that's where you have to look for that to support your argument, a picture of bio in a battle. Which usually includes a massive reduction of density due to splash damage. | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:34 foreign2 wrote: it's simple how to make sc2 more popular: you can but it will result in a different game. the gameplay: -make macro easier with worker collecting more ressources or less workers needed or auto build worker/units -battles should last longer and people should be able to win with a smaller army - usualy you know the winner even before the fight has started. -make the game more fun and less apm intense - i've played a lot of games but sc2 is too exhausting: you can lose an entire game by 1 misstake. But the biggest point is that compared to other games this game becomes more and more exhausting when you improve. the battlenet -make the chat become the start screen -force clans to have at least 10 members to be created because every idiot has a clan tag and it's nothing special -make profiles like in warcraft3 were player actually can bring a personal touch into the game and you don't have to click 3 times bevore you can see stats macro is already the easiest stuff in sc2, we dont need to make it more easier. Every Zerg silver player is able to get 200/200 at 12:30. Very similar at protoss, 200/200 at ~18:30 (without any upgrades) if nobody attacks. Scouting has to be easier than now. I agree the rest. Pretty sad: we see a game which takes 20min but if you add every sec from every fight, most likely we see 2min fight and 18min a economical simulation + simcity. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 29 2013 22:32 Dingodile wrote: macro is already the easiest stuff in sc2, we dont need to make it more easier. Every Zerg silver player is able to get 200/200 at 12:30. Very similar at protoss, 200/200 at ~18:30 (without any upgrades) if nobody attacks. Scouting has to be easier than now. I agree the rest. Pretty sad: we see a game which takes 20min but if you add every sec from every fight, most likely we see 2min fight and 18min a economical simulation + simcity. I think he's talking about trying to increase the casual player base by making macro easier. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On September 28 2013 20:41 MidnightZL wrote: I've got no problem with sc2, what i do have problem with is these kind of articles full of bs, it's just bad for the game, the game is not dying and no it will not die in the coming years either, if it dies, then it's only because articles like this. Sc2 is a wonderful game and has never been more popular. So stop with the BS Articles! People like you acting out of a combination of emotion and ignorance (reasonable ignorance as you're very new to the SC series if you don't have a BW history and thus of course can't be expected to know everything) justifying Browder and his team's deep deeply rooted design mistakes which sucking life out of SC2 are why a lot of them have been allowed to go unchecked for so long. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
"People like you"? Get off it. | ||
|
Thrillz
4313 Posts
On September 29 2013 11:43 Ben... wrote: Sounds about right. A lot of the stuff that made SC2 fun has been nerfed out of existence/removed from the game in the name of balance, and it has left us a game with far less variety than it used to have. If only we could go back to pre-May 2012 WoL I would play the game far more than I do now. Before the stupid queen patch and all of the issues that have resulted because of that patch since then that screwed up WoL and that the SC2 has never really recovered from. Honestly though, the Squirtle-Mvp was essentially a boring turtlefest game, people only go apeshit because of the toilet, but the overall game was boring. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On September 30 2013 09:42 aZealot wrote: What a load of condescending crap. You don't have to have played or known BW to have a privileged opinion of what you like and don't like in SC2. Especially if all your response is "ignorance" and a variation of "design mistakes" for the nth time (zzz). "People like you"? Get off it. No you absolutely do. Rule of thumb is if you haven't been to a place, experienced a certain subject, don't comment on it. It's just going to show your ignorance. Quit trying to rationalize your unresearched laziness. | ||
|
Dundron2000
Sweden1140 Posts
On September 29 2013 11:43 Ben... wrote: Sounds about right. A lot of the stuff that made SC2 fun has been nerfed out of existence/removed from the game in the name of balance, and it has left us a game with far less variety than it used to have. If only we could go back to pre-May 2012 WoL I would play the game far more than I do now. Before the stupid queen patch and all of the issues that have resulted because of that patch since then that screwed up WoL and that the SC2 has never really recovered from. bring back the archon toilet? hahaha. no. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
Fundamentally, what's causing the whole problem is the whether a game is fun to watch/play or not for a mass number of people. All other factors are marginal. Pretty simply. | ||
| ||
