|
On October 08 2013 01:44 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 01:35 norjoncal wrote:On October 08 2013 01:05 SCguineapig wrote:
hatign all those negative comments right here. i agree that blizzard has to improve it's game, region lock for wcs will definetly get me to watch next year because i don't like a full army of koreans fighting it out in the finals. i just dont like it. but what i dont like is the people taht are constantly stating that the game is dying. it is not at all dying, it is just growing slower then dota2 or league. which is understandable because rts generally dont appeal to much to casuals. especially sc2 in its current state. you wanna know a game that is dead? medal of honour airborne. about 10 people playing multiplayer at a time. as long as you can find matches in a minute or less the game is far from dead. Is SC2 growing? I thought overall the view numbers have gone down. Region locking is a double edged sword. If you region lock you are going to see a lot of Koreans retire. Its been going downhill. First wcs eu i watched had peak of 100k viewers. 2nd I watched was like 60k (TI3). and the recent finals i think was also about 60k (without TI3). If only more top koreans speak english like MC viewers would come back for the drama.
we had both MMA and MC for final, both have a huge fan base.
I think it's just poor promotion from blizzard.
|
On October 08 2013 10:43 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The bottom line is that SC2 is heavily macro based and very weak in the micro aspect. And macro is boring to watch - "oh look at how he's never missing an scv! Wow!"
People like it when fighting games are about fighting. That's why LoL, Dota are all more popular. They're always fighting. Laning phase: constant trading, ganking. Teamfights, fighting over dragon/baron, tower diving, etc etc.
The bottom line is, SC2 is just not that action packed - spend 20 min to build up a big deathball, then a 10 sec. fight and gg. Yeah there is some harass here and there, but it's nothing near the action of the games.
I repeat - SC2 is just not that action packed. Fix that and you fix its dying popularity.
Well, first of all the dying popularity of SC2 has to be established.
Apart from that, I love seeing good macro play. I like seeing a great macro Protoss or Terran not missing a single worker, production cycle or supply point, especially if they are being active with scouting and army (either defensively or offensively); which is what you get at the highest level of play. I appreciate it all the more because as a low-mid level player, I know how hard it is to keep pressing 5E (or 4E) while doing these things (or in my case, trying to do these things without derping over the keyboard).
When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting.
This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either.
As to the 20 minute build up into gg this is one of those prevalent false statements that still keep getting bandied about. Sure SC2 is not action packed like MOBA games. It can't be. But, too often, I think players transpose their own ladder experience onto what everybody else is doing or what everybody else is seeing. At the highest level of play, many games are quite action packed. Certainly in comparison to where they were a year ago. As to ladder experience, there is nothing stopping players trying to play a more action intensive game and finding out more about the rules and limits of the game.
|
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane.
|
On October 08 2013 11:26 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 01:44 Kheve wrote:On October 08 2013 01:35 norjoncal wrote:On October 08 2013 01:05 SCguineapig wrote:
hatign all those negative comments right here. i agree that blizzard has to improve it's game, region lock for wcs will definetly get me to watch next year because i don't like a full army of koreans fighting it out in the finals. i just dont like it. but what i dont like is the people taht are constantly stating that the game is dying. it is not at all dying, it is just growing slower then dota2 or league. which is understandable because rts generally dont appeal to much to casuals. especially sc2 in its current state. you wanna know a game that is dead? medal of honour airborne. about 10 people playing multiplayer at a time. as long as you can find matches in a minute or less the game is far from dead. Is SC2 growing? I thought overall the view numbers have gone down. Region locking is a double edged sword. If you region lock you are going to see a lot of Koreans retire. Its been going downhill. First wcs eu i watched had peak of 100k viewers. 2nd I watched was like 60k (TI3). and the recent finals i think was also about 60k (without TI3). If only more top koreans speak english like MC viewers would come back for the drama. we had both MMA and MC for final, both have a huge fan base. I think it's just poor promotion from blizzard.
First WCS EU had MVP and Stephano.
|
SC2 is not dying... jesus. 100k viewers for the season 2 finals is dying right? idiots. There are core aspects of the game that need to be fixed but as people say the negativity is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
EDIT: also, a bunch of Code B koreans retiring doesn't exactly lead me to believe the game is doomed. It means that the competition is strengthening. It sucks if you supported them and they were good in 2010 but it's 2013, approaching 2014 and times have changed.
|
On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability.
|
On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability.
Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design?
|
On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability.
No.
- SC2 has auto surround, so you do not need to spilt up your army into very small chunks to manually surround.
- SC2 has smart targeting, putting banelings on attack move will only use up the required banelings. In BW with scourges you needed to clone micro otherwise they will all attack one target
- BW had magic boxes, meaning you needed skill to smart cast abilities
- BW the units were spaced out, so it was easier to micro individual units. SC2 is just blob vs blob.
In BW every battle looked so different because everything was down to a players skill and ability to micro. Every SC2 battle looks the same because of lack of micro required.
|
On October 08 2013 12:16 Highways wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. No. - SC2 has auto surround, so you do not need to spilt up your army into very small chunks to manually surround. - SC2 has smart targeting, putting banelings on attack move will only use up the required banelings. In BW with scourges you needed to clone micro otherwise they will all attack one target - BW had magic boxes, meaning you needed skill to smart cast abilities - BW the units were spaced out, so it was easier to micro individual units. SC2 is just blob vs blob. In BW every battle looked so different because everything was down to a players skill and ability to micro. Every SC2 battle looks the same because of lack of micro required.
sorry but you got some points wrong.
Auto surround is only good for beginner. Guess why Life manually split up his lings to surround hellions? Guess why Stephano manually move his roaches for better concave? Look at losira in WoL in his control to make a surround for ultras to deal the damage instead of getting stucked at the back,
auto attacking the banelings would just mean they would all attack on the target they see. Watch zerg stream. They split the banelings manually to catch the bio.
Different sort of skill.
Baiting stim, forcefields, fungal and storms are a form of skill too.
As for your last one, yes. but this is why SC2 is not the same game as BW. It is more important to control opponent army movement than micro.
|
On October 08 2013 12:14 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design? There isn't a lack of choices. Some players just choose to play passively. Some players don't have the ability to play actively on the map without falling behind in other areas of their game.
There have been a ton of matches lately between very good players with action all over the map; back-and-forth, long, micro-intensive engagements; and a solid game duration of ~20 minutes or more.
While SC2 does allow players to play "competently" by being passive and engaging in big deathball fights, it isn't the ideal way to play, and those players usually get picked apart by the ones that can macro just as well as the passive guy while also being active on the map.
|
On October 08 2013 13:16 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:14 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design? There isn't a lack of choices. Some players just choose to play passively. Some players don't have the ability to play actively on the map without falling behind in other areas of their game. There have been a ton of matches lately between very good players with action all over the map; back-and-forth, long, micro-intensive engagements; and a solid game duration of ~20 minutes or more. While SC2 does allow players to play "competently" by being passive and engaging in big deathball fights, it isn't the ideal way to play, and those players usually get picked apart by the ones that can macro just as well as the passive guy while also being active on the map.
Totally disagree. SC2 promotes deathballs rather than splitting army.
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
On October 08 2013 13:55 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 12:14 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design? There isn't a lack of choices. Some players just choose to play passively. Some players don't have the ability to play actively on the map without falling behind in other areas of their game. There have been a ton of matches lately between very good players with action all over the map; back-and-forth, long, micro-intensive engagements; and a solid game duration of ~20 minutes or more. While SC2 does allow players to play "competently" by being passive and engaging in big deathball fights, it isn't the ideal way to play, and those players usually get picked apart by the ones that can macro just as well as the passive guy while also being active on the map. Totally disagree. SC2 promotes deathballs rather than splitting army.
Just in low pre-masters level.
|
On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:
When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch completely misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting.
This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either.
Wow omg so much macro happening at the same time, the screen is gonna blow! ... Come one give me a break man... It's such a holier-than-thou attitude to believe that everybody should appreciate things just like you do and if the world is in disagreement with your views then everybody is wrong because 'they are uneducated', bottomline is: Nobody cared to watch macro in BW, the game had a lot more going on to keep you on the seat and watching seats it's what determines a game's success.
|
On October 08 2013 13:55 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 12:14 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design? There isn't a lack of choices. Some players just choose to play passively. Some players don't have the ability to play actively on the map without falling behind in other areas of their game. There have been a ton of matches lately between very good players with action all over the map; back-and-forth, long, micro-intensive engagements; and a solid game duration of ~20 minutes or more. While SC2 does allow players to play "competently" by being passive and engaging in big deathball fights, it isn't the ideal way to play, and those players usually get picked apart by the ones that can macro just as well as the passive guy while also being active on the map. Totally disagree. SC2 promotes deathballs rather than splitting army. Do you think it's pure coincidence that as the top players get better and better, they split up their army more and more? Do you think that those players would benefit from not splitting up their army?
Considering your assertion runs counter to most of the evidence we have available to us, you're going to have to qualify it a bit.
|
On October 08 2013 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:
When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch completely misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting.
This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either. Wow omg so much macro happening at the same time, the screen is gonna blow! ... Come one give me a break man... It's such a holier-than-thou attitude to believe that everybody should appreciate things just like you do and if the world is in disagreement with your views then everybody is wrong because 'they are uneducated', bottomline is: Nobody cared to watch macro in BW, the game had a lot more going on to keep you on the seat and watching seats it's what determines a game's success.
LOL. Don't put words in my mouth. I was responding to someone who said macro was boring. I said, I did not find it boring. Where did I say he was uneducated? Where did I say he should appreciate things the way I do? Please quote me. Go on.
Basically, it's pointing out that different people appreciate different things about the game. That's all. Learn to read, mate.
Edit/ As to BW, what has that got to do with it? The poster I responded to was talking about MOBA games. Not BW.
|
On October 08 2013 14:29 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote:On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:
When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch completely misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting.
This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either. Wow omg so much macro happening at the same time, the screen is gonna blow! ... Come one give me a break man... It's such a holier-than-thou attitude to believe that everybody should appreciate things just like you do and if the world is in disagreement with your views then everybody is wrong because 'they are uneducated', bottomline is: Nobody cared to watch macro in BW, the game had a lot more going on to keep you on the seat and watching seats it's what determines a game's success. LOL. Don't put words in my mouth. I was responding to someone who said macro was boring. I said, I did not find it boring. Where did I say he was uneducated? Where did I say he should appreciate things the way I do? Please quote me. Go on. Learn to read, mate.
I said that for most spectators and casual players, macro is boring to watch. Of course there are going to be niche people who actually enjoy watching macro, but catering to this niche small group is exactly why SC2 is lacking in popularity (and thus money) compared to LoL/Dota.
People in general want action games to have action. The more action the better. Blizzard and SC2, with the focus on deathball and macro, got the action all wrong. They had it better in BW with the more intense microing.
|
On October 08 2013 14:27 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:55 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 13:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 12:14 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design? There isn't a lack of choices. Some players just choose to play passively. Some players don't have the ability to play actively on the map without falling behind in other areas of their game. There have been a ton of matches lately between very good players with action all over the map; back-and-forth, long, micro-intensive engagements; and a solid game duration of ~20 minutes or more. While SC2 does allow players to play "competently" by being passive and engaging in big deathball fights, it isn't the ideal way to play, and those players usually get picked apart by the ones that can macro just as well as the passive guy while also being active on the map. Totally disagree. SC2 promotes deathballs rather than splitting army. Do you think it's pure coincidence that as the top players get better and better, they split up their army more and more? Do you think that those players would benefit from not splitting up their army? Considering your assertion runs counter to most of the evidence we have available to us, you're going to have to qualify it a bit.
A couple expendable units here and there for harassment or flanks maybe. In Brood War, you would even split expensive tech units off from your main army to defend expansions. For example, late game PvZ, where you need Reavers/High Templars at multiple expansions. Even in an evenly matched by skill game if you leave 1 or 2 Colossus out of your army from the main fight, chances are you're going to lose that fight and the game.
The problem here is that defender's advantage doesn't exist, so you can't afford to leave expensive units standing around defending. If you lose most/all of your army in a big engagement, it's over. In StarCraft: Brood War, it's much different. You can buy time to macro up some units on very low supply. Siege Tanks, Spider Mines, Lurkers, and Dark Swarm are all great at defending against innumerable odds. The high ground advantage and the increased difficulty of moving your whole army up the natural choke point and into the main production lines also adds to this defender's advantage.
On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 10:43 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The bottom line is that SC2 is heavily macro based and very weak in the micro aspect. And macro is boring to watch - "oh look at how he's never missing an scv! Wow!"
People like it when fighting games are about fighting. That's why LoL, Dota are all more popular. They're always fighting. Laning phase: constant trading, ganking. Teamfights, fighting over dragon/baron, tower diving, etc etc.
The bottom line is, SC2 is just not that action packed - spend 20 min to build up a big deathball, then a 10 sec. fight and gg. Yeah there is some harass here and there, but it's nothing near the action of the games.
I repeat - SC2 is just not that action packed. Fix that and you fix its dying popularity.
Well, first of all the dying popularity of SC2 has to be established. Apart from that, I love seeing good macro play. I like seeing a great macro Protoss or Terran not missing a single worker, production cycle or supply point, especially if they are being active with scouting and army (either defensively or offensively); which is what you get at the highest level of play. I appreciate it all the more because as a low-mid level player, I know how hard it is to keep pressing 5E (or 4E) while doing these things (or in my case, trying to do these things without derping over the keyboard). When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting. This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either. As to the 20 minute build up into gg this is one of those prevalent false statements that still keep getting bandied about. Sure SC2 is not action packed like MOBA games. It can't be. But, too often, I think players transpose their own ladder experience onto what everybody else is doing or what everybody else is seeing. At the highest level of play, many games are quite action packed. Certainly in comparison to where they were a year ago. As to ladder experience, there is nothing stopping players trying to play a more action intensive game and finding out more about the rules and limits of the game.
Why does macro impress you when there is little difference in macro skill at the top level? Flash was the macro king in Brood War (among other important skills) and it would win him games, yet this does little for him in this game. This game is all about decision making and metagaming when you have solid fundamentals. There is very little difference in micro and macro skill at the upper echelons of SC2 progaming.
You can't design a game with three completely difference races that's too easy for the top tier players to play. In StarCraft: Brood War, it wasn't perfectly balanced. You overcame racial balance and map balance by player skill. As we can see in StarCraft 2, with S Class Koreans losing to not even top tier foreigners, at a certain point, the skill requirement just drops off dramatically.
|
On October 08 2013 14:37 SpeghettiJoe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 14:29 aZealot wrote:On October 08 2013 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote:On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:
When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch completely misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting.
This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either. Wow omg so much macro happening at the same time, the screen is gonna blow! ... Come one give me a break man... It's such a holier-than-thou attitude to believe that everybody should appreciate things just like you do and if the world is in disagreement with your views then everybody is wrong because 'they are uneducated', bottomline is: Nobody cared to watch macro in BW, the game had a lot more going on to keep you on the seat and watching seats it's what determines a game's success. LOL. Don't put words in my mouth. I was responding to someone who said macro was boring. I said, I did not find it boring. Where did I say he was uneducated? Where did I say he should appreciate things the way I do? Please quote me. Go on. Learn to read, mate. I said that for most spectators and casual players, macro is boring to watch. Of course there are going to be niche people who actually enjoy watching macro, but catering to this niche small group is exactly why SC2 is lacking in popularity (and thus money) compared to LoL/Dota. People in general want action games to have action. The more action the better. Blizzard and SC2, with the focus on deathball and macro, got the action all wrong. They had it better in BW with the more intense microing.
Yes, this is true (at least for the most part) because macro is something you don't watch. And certainly, if all you do is sit on your base and make probes and pylons that is boring. But, surely you appreciate good macro while players are active and being aggressive or defensive, no? You can tell by the supply count (worker and army). Casual spectators, as you say, may not appreciate it. But, any semi-serious player will, don't you think? Can you characterise these as a niche group?
It's ironic that you bring up BW because while I have not watched much of it at all, I hear that one of the defining features of Flash's play was his stellar macro. In fact, having played a little BW, the macro in BW was way harder. People more versed in BW may want to correct me, but, it seems to me that if your macro was not halfway to a decent level, then by and large the micro-ability in BW would not be enough to compensate and you'd generally be beaten by players with better macro.
As to action games, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd dislike it if SC2 became an action game (its a strategy game for one thing) like a MOBA. Sure, there are areas for SC2 to improve. But, mimicking MOBA level action is not one of them, IMO.
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
On October 08 2013 14:37 SpeghettiJoe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 14:29 aZealot wrote:On October 08 2013 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote:On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:
When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch completely misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting.
This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either. Wow omg so much macro happening at the same time, the screen is gonna blow! ... Come one give me a break man... It's such a holier-than-thou attitude to believe that everybody should appreciate things just like you do and if the world is in disagreement with your views then everybody is wrong because 'they are uneducated', bottomline is: Nobody cared to watch macro in BW, the game had a lot more going on to keep you on the seat and watching seats it's what determines a game's success. LOL. Don't put words in my mouth. I was responding to someone who said macro was boring. I said, I did not find it boring. Where did I say he was uneducated? Where did I say he should appreciate things the way I do? Please quote me. Go on. Learn to read, mate. I said that for most spectators and casual players, macro is boring to watch. Of course there are going to be niche people who actually enjoy watching macro, but catering to this niche small group is exactly why SC2 is lacking in popularity (and thus money) compared to LoL/Dota. People in general want action games to have action. The more action the better. Blizzard and SC2, with the focus on deathball and macro, got the action all wrong. They had it better in BW with the more intense microing.
I never enjoyed watching LoL and Dota. I think its pretty funny to play, but to watch - omg, better i watch CS:GO or WoW arena then poor mobas. I always thought that sc2 has much mroe action then mobas. SC2 is absolutely most fun game to watch. It is the only one game im really excited to watch. Just IMO.
Better to see a probe pumping pylons and pro's BO then stupidly watching 5 guys farming creeps and harassing eachother till 8 minute mark. PFF i just came into low platinum level of LoL without watching any stream and any tournament.
|
On October 08 2013 14:37 Arco wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 14:27 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 13:55 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 13:16 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 12:14 saddaromma wrote:On October 08 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:On October 08 2013 11:58 Highways wrote:
OMG the OP is post of the year!!!
Agree on all points.
I particularly like the point one SC2 being more of a simulation. When a battle starts everything is basically attack move, the player is required to have very little micro. Imagine from a spectator view, wait 20 minutes of nothing happening then a 5 second battle occurs that decides a game where the players barely need to micro.
Letting David Kim design this game is like letting a monkey fly a plane. This has very little to do with the game design and very much to do with player choices/lack of ability. Haven't it occured to you that lack of choices is due to design? There isn't a lack of choices. Some players just choose to play passively. Some players don't have the ability to play actively on the map without falling behind in other areas of their game. There have been a ton of matches lately between very good players with action all over the map; back-and-forth, long, micro-intensive engagements; and a solid game duration of ~20 minutes or more. While SC2 does allow players to play "competently" by being passive and engaging in big deathball fights, it isn't the ideal way to play, and those players usually get picked apart by the ones that can macro just as well as the passive guy while also being active on the map. Totally disagree. SC2 promotes deathballs rather than splitting army. Do you think it's pure coincidence that as the top players get better and better, they split up their army more and more? Do you think that those players would benefit from not splitting up their army? Considering your assertion runs counter to most of the evidence we have available to us, you're going to have to qualify it a bit. A couple expendable units here and there for harassment or flanks maybe. In Brood War, you would even split expensive tech units off from your main army to defend expansions. For example, late game PvZ, where you need Reavers/High Templars at multiple expansions. Even in an evenly matched by skill game if you leave 1 or 2 Colossus out of your army from the main fight, chances are you're going to lose that fight and the game. The problem here is that defender's advantage doesn't exist, so you can't afford to leave expensive units standing around defending. If you lose most/all of your army in a big engagement, it's over. In StarCraft: Brood War, it's much different. You can buy time to macro up some units on very low supply. Siege Tanks, Spider Mines, Lurkers, and Dark Swarm are all great at defending against innumerable odds. The high ground advantage and the increased difficulty of moving your whole army up the natural choke point and into the main production lines also adds to this defender's advantage. Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 11:41 aZealot wrote:On October 08 2013 10:43 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The bottom line is that SC2 is heavily macro based and very weak in the micro aspect. And macro is boring to watch - "oh look at how he's never missing an scv! Wow!"
People like it when fighting games are about fighting. That's why LoL, Dota are all more popular. They're always fighting. Laning phase: constant trading, ganking. Teamfights, fighting over dragon/baron, tower diving, etc etc.
The bottom line is, SC2 is just not that action packed - spend 20 min to build up a big deathball, then a 10 sec. fight and gg. Yeah there is some harass here and there, but it's nothing near the action of the games.
I repeat - SC2 is just not that action packed. Fix that and you fix its dying popularity.
Well, first of all the dying popularity of SC2 has to be established. Apart from that, I love seeing good macro play. I like seeing a great macro Protoss or Terran not missing a single worker, production cycle or supply point, especially if they are being active with scouting and army (either defensively or offensively); which is what you get at the highest level of play. I appreciate it all the more because as a low-mid level player, I know how hard it is to keep pressing 5E (or 4E) while doing these things (or in my case, trying to do these things without derping over the keyboard). When I see a top level Terran like Bomber, or a Protoss like Rain, manage their economy, I am awestruck. This is not to say that I don't appreciate good micro (I especially like Protoss micro by players like MC who somehow eke out an advantage), but to say that good macro is boring to watch misses one of the defining features of SC2. It is not just a fighting game. It is also a resource management game. SC2 would bore me if it were all about fighting. This may be one reason why I find DOTA and LOL boring. I've tried to give these games a chance and they have nothing for me. I've never thought too much about why, and this might be one reason. I find all that "action" just tedious. Now, it may be that I don't understand those games. Fair enough. But, I have no spark of interest in learning them, either. As to the 20 minute build up into gg this is one of those prevalent false statements that still keep getting bandied about. Sure SC2 is not action packed like MOBA games. It can't be. But, too often, I think players transpose their own ladder experience onto what everybody else is doing or what everybody else is seeing. At the highest level of play, many games are quite action packed. Certainly in comparison to where they were a year ago. As to ladder experience, there is nothing stopping players trying to play a more action intensive game and finding out more about the rules and limits of the game. Why does macro impress you when there is little difference in macro skill at the top level? Flash was the macro king in Brood War (among other important skills) and it would win him games, yet this does little for him in this game. This game is all about decision making and metagaming when you have solid fundamentals. There is very little difference in micro and macro skill at the upper echelons of SC2 progaming. You can't design a game with three completely difference races that's too easy for the top tier players to play. In StarCraft: Brood War, it wasn't perfectly balanced. You overcame racial balance and map balance by player skill. As we can see in StarCraft 2, with S Class Koreans losing to not even top tier foreigners, at a certain point, the skill requirement just drops off dramatically.
It impresses me because I am bad at it. It also impresses me because I think there are players, at the highest level, who are better at it than others. As a Protoss, I really like seeing Rain do what he does, because I am torn apart by any halfway decent Terran (even if I prefer a more MC-esque style). As to decision making and metagaming, I also like these as good skills to have (although, if I am being honest, I am not overly a fan of metagaming). As to why Flash has not been able to mimic his skill in BW to SC2, I have no idea why. There could be other reasons than those above (such as putting in the same work to conquer a new game might be beyond him). Fact is, I don't know. And I have no inclination or interest to theorise as to the reasons.
As to BW, like I said, I did not follow the scene (apart from playing it a little from 1998 - 1999/2000 and then giving it up like a lot of other people do with games) and didn't watch it. If I did, maybe I'd agree with you. But I did not. So, it's a moot point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
