|
On October 01 2013 01:01 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:51 Boonbag wrote:On October 01 2013 00:37 Assirra wrote:On October 01 2013 00:11 saddaromma wrote:On September 30 2013 23:56 lolfail9001 wrote:
By the way, does anyone have a foreign viewership numbers for BW during it's peak in Korea (yes, i am telling it with straight face)? You can't compare BW and SC2 viewerships. Internet was much much smaller back then. People didn't have PCs. But you can feel how popular bw was, almost every gamer kid in every country played it, millions of lans in each city. It definitely was top 2 along with counter-strike. I guess the only way to compare BW and SC2 is to check their popularity in PC bangs at their peaks times. Sorry but there is no way "almost every gamer kid in every country" played BW. RTS are a niche on its own and fps will forever massively overshadow it. It might be popular but not even close to what you are suggesting. Also, your suggestion to compare a game that can use the PC bangs models compared to one that has to jump through hoops is really biassed. lol man u got no idea how popular starcraft : brood war was. it's one of the most played game ever edit : anyway i think people really waste time thinking about sc2 1st : it wont accomplish anything nor bring any change to the game 2nd : i doubt sc2 will be around much longer like bw lasted, that is, unless china picks up the game, wich is highly unlikely China is still playing WC3 a lot. They know where it's at. 
haha i thought so
|
On October 01 2013 01:01 vesicular wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:29 Spaylz wrote:
With mechanics such as shift queue, unlimited group control and what not, all Blizzard is doing is taking away the unpractical parts of the game and making the whole experience more smooth and pleasant, thus leaving more space for more important plays. It's simple, if you have to spend more time on simple and very basic commands such as ordering your units back manually instead of shift queueing, you have less time for micro and real macro and harassment and everything else.
Getting rid of impractical parts of the game would be fine if "important plays" were actually important. SC2 is a fast game that seems like it the main skills should be micro and battles, but almost all of them are decided before the fights begin. In think this is the main crux of the issue people have. This is also why it's compared so much to BW as the mechanics for BW were much harder (the unpracticality notwithstanding) and yet also had way more micro potential than SC2 does. This is a big reason why SC2 just feels...wrong in comparison. They made macro easy, but degraded the micro experience so much that it leaves the entire game flat.
disagreed, the emphasis should definitely not be on micro. if you want to see how much a person can get out of 1 or a few units, then LoL or wc3 might just be the game for you. maybe company of heroes?
sc2 is a military game. military meaning BIG. FUCKING. ARMIES. LONG. EPIC. BATTLES.
of course control is important. but generally building up that army, what kind of army, and where you position your army should be the main concern.
maybe sc2 can learn from red alert 3. main reason why that game failed hard was because traditional RTS players want to participate and want to see large scale tank battles where lots of stuff keeps blowing up.
|
On October 01 2013 01:14 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 01:01 vesicular wrote:On October 01 2013 00:29 Spaylz wrote:
With mechanics such as shift queue, unlimited group control and what not, all Blizzard is doing is taking away the unpractical parts of the game and making the whole experience more smooth and pleasant, thus leaving more space for more important plays. It's simple, if you have to spend more time on simple and very basic commands such as ordering your units back manually instead of shift queueing, you have less time for micro and real macro and harassment and everything else.
Getting rid of impractical parts of the game would be fine if "important plays" were actually important. SC2 is a fast game that seems like it the main skills should be micro and battles, but almost all of them are decided before the fights begin. In think this is the main crux of the issue people have. This is also why it's compared so much to BW as the mechanics for BW were much harder (the unpracticality notwithstanding) and yet also had way more micro potential than SC2 does. This is a big reason why SC2 just feels...wrong in comparison. They made macro easy, but degraded the micro experience so much that it leaves the entire game flat. disagreed, the emphasis should definitely not be on micro. if you want to see how much a person can get out of 1 or a few units, then LoL or wc3 might just be the game for you. maybe company of heroes? sc2 is a military game. military meaning BIG. FUCKING. ARMIES. LONG. EPIC. BATTLES. of course control is important. but generally building up that army, what kind of army, and where you position your army should be the main concern. maybe sc2 can learn from red alert 3. main reason why that game failed hard was because traditional RTS players want to participate and want to see large scale tank battles where lots of stuff keeps blowing up.
But the battles in SC2 are not long. They are certainly much, much shorter than the battles in WC3. The skirmishes and harassment situations might last longer, but real big game-making battles usually don't last long.
What he was saying was that the game seems to be decided more by the decisions made by the players prior to the actual "final" battle and not by how they react during said battle. Unless a major screw up happens, positioning is more important than any other factor.
|
the biggest problem of Starcraft, which has always been the case, has been the massive divide between "casual player" and "good player". When things like APM single-handedly decide games because things move SO FAST and do SO much damage and die SO hard....
SC2 sucks for newbies, and they're the ones doing most of the watching. If it's not fun to play, it sure as hell won't be fun to watch...
|
THats because of Hard counters..... The game was made around hard counters so unit composition reigns supreme
Which in all honesty it isn't necessarily a bad thing just I wish there were ways that even though the unit is a hard counter that micro could make it so if you were a better player that your micro would matter
I don't like to keep chiming a broken bell but in bw for instance the Marine vses lurker.... if you Danced you can destroy a single lurker with 1 marine..... but 2 lurkers could kill 20+ marines in 1 shot if you microed and waited and baited and played it right
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 01 2013 01:27 Pirfiktshon wrote:
THats because of Hard counters..... The game was made around hard counters so unit composition reigns supreme
Which in all honesty it isn't necessarily a bad thing just I wish there were ways that even though the unit is a hard counter that micro could make it so if you were a better player that your micro would matter
I don't like to keep chiming a broken bell but in bw for instance the Marine vses lurker.... if you Danced you can destroy a single lurker with 1 marine..... but 2 lurkers could kill 20+ marines in 1 shot if you microed and waited and baited and played it right
BW tanks, BW storms and BW reavers against marines. Talk more about hard counters.
|
How often did you use Bio vses Protoss? If you did you defly didn't play past C-.............. Nless you cheesed against toss every game LOL Ditto for TvT Mech reigned but micro was so important as well as macro and position and learning how to break siege lines... soooooooooo Talk less?
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 01 2013 02:05 Pirfiktshon wrote:
How often did you use Bio vses Protoss? If you did you defly didn't play past C-.............. Nless you cheesed against toss every game LOL Ditto for TvT Mech reigned but micro was so important as well as macro and position and learning how to break siege lines... soooooooooo Talk less?
What's what i meant. If you talk about hard counters in SC2 you have to mention the usefulness of bio against toss in BW and reasons behind lack of one.
Same for TvT.
|
You could sure but your point is not even relevant to what i was actually saying. There is more micro that matters in sc1 than in sc2.... the dynamic that each race had because of the unit composition had a certain way to use them that increased the depth of the game and made it overall a more interesting and fun game to play than sc2...... Why are you so persnickety over everything I say on any topic?
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 01 2013 02:31 Pirfiktshon wrote:
You could sure but your point is not even relevant to what i was actually saying. There is more micro that matters in sc1 than in sc2.... the dynamic that each race had because of the unit composition had a certain way to use them that increased the depth of the game and made it overall a more interesting and fun game to play than sc2...... Why are you so persnickety over everything I say on any topic?
You gave me a mechanic between lurker and marine (that i am yet to see in serious macro games in 2010 BW, probably because i do not watch much BW, as it is boring for me). Now give me other mechanics, okay? I for one, know the lurker vs marine mechanic and i just side with position that states that the only reason marines were good in TvZ is because lurkers did not completely roflstomp 'em like tanks, storms and reavers did.
|
Why do I have to give you every mechanic of BW? You don't watch it and obviously know very little about the game so why are you trying to argue with someone making a point from BW to talk about how we could seriously think about making sc2 as fun and interesting as BW..... to me you are just trolling and need to stop and let others have a serious conversation as opposed to someone who wants things drawn out for him and argue about something he has no idea about.... seriously I've seen people get banned and warned for talking about things they didn't know about.... which obviously at the very least you should be warned for making a statement that you don't know what you are talking about for the sake of creating an argument......
|
On October 01 2013 01:57 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 01:27 Pirfiktshon wrote:
THats because of Hard counters..... The game was made around hard counters so unit composition reigns supreme
Which in all honesty it isn't necessarily a bad thing just I wish there were ways that even though the unit is a hard counter that micro could make it so if you were a better player that your micro would matter
I don't like to keep chiming a broken bell but in bw for instance the Marine vses lurker.... if you Danced you can destroy a single lurker with 1 marine..... but 2 lurkers could kill 20+ marines in 1 shot if you microed and waited and baited and played it right BW tanks, BW storms and BW reavers against marines. Talk more about hard counters.
Those weren't hard counters, they just did a HIGH amount of damage. I mean scarabs did 100 damage for fucks sake, and you could have upgraded it for more.
Storms weren't just good against marines and lings, but nearly all unit compositions.
It would be like if snipe was useful against banelings, marines, marauders, zeals, hydras, mutas, roaches, but it isn't it's only good for spell casters.
Units and abilities are pigeon holed into very few possibilities.
|
On September 29 2013 15:10 Rabiator wrote:
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.
This is golden.
|
On October 01 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:10 Rabiator wrote:
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. This is golden.
Nice quote.
Yeah RTS viewership is all about building up suspense and drama, not Hollywood action.. Replacing the core with something else like explosions or a ridiculous skill cap is only going to frustrate fans and demotivate players...
|
Im just curious why my thread was closed and this one wasn't?
"Please leave suggestions on b.net, not TL."
was the reason , yet this thread is full of suggestions ?
|
Great. An entire thread to give people an excuse to not behave like adults and badger blizzard with insults. Why don't you act like decent human beings and understand the effort that was put into the game? How is that not enough.
|
On October 01 2013 02:11 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:05 Pirfiktshon wrote:
How often did you use Bio vses Protoss? If you did you defly didn't play past C-.............. Nless you cheesed against toss every game LOL Ditto for TvT Mech reigned but micro was so important as well as macro and position and learning how to break siege lines... soooooooooo Talk less? What's what i meant. If you talk about hard counters in SC2 you have to mention the usefulness of bio against toss in BW and reasons behind lack of one. Same for TvT.
By your logic, zerglings hardcountered workers in BW. Therefore hardcounters existed in BW.
|
On October 01 2013 12:36 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:11 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 01 2013 02:05 Pirfiktshon wrote:
How often did you use Bio vses Protoss? If you did you defly didn't play past C-.............. Nless you cheesed against toss every game LOL Ditto for TvT Mech reigned but micro was so important as well as macro and position and learning how to break siege lines... soooooooooo Talk less? What's what i meant. If you talk about hard counters in SC2 you have to mention the usefulness of bio against toss in BW and reasons behind lack of one. Same for TvT. By your logic, zerglings hardcountered workers in BW. Therefore hardcounters existed in BW.
By your circle jerking logic microscopes hard counter ants in real life. Therefore sc2 is realistic.
|
What's the problem with SC2? It's a great game. All they need to do is change the name so it doesn't have Starcraft in it.
Like:
Drop-craft
Basetrade-craft
200-200-craft
Deathball-craft
MMMM-craft
|
On October 01 2013 07:26 GhostFiber wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 06:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On September 29 2013 15:10 Rabiator wrote:
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. This is golden. Nice quote. Yeah RTS viewership is all about building up suspense and drama, not Hollywood action.. Replacing the core with something else like explosions or a ridiculous skill cap is only going to frustrate fans and demotivate players...
Explosions and special effects are good if they are RARE ... because if "everything is special" then "nothing is special and special becomes the new normal".
Smartcast just makes it too easy to use lots of "special" spells and thus they arent that special anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
