|
On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game. We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage. Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not. The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch. So do you want to try again? Yeahhhh most of this entire post is bullshit.
Forcefield really doesn't have the sort of terrible effect on the game that people claim it does. There's a lot of skillful play that revolves around using and baiting and countering forcefields. It's not the exact same sort of skillful play that existed in SC:BW, but it still leads to a lot of cool interactions.
Splitting/engagement skills have become so much better than they were when the game came out. You can check out the sC retirement thread for 2 examples of games between top pros where a current mid-masters players would mop the floor with them with better engagements alone. Most top-level games between similarly skilled players include several 10 second or longer engagements with the winner slowly chipping advantages away from the loser.
As players get better and better, the engagements get longer and longer and more micro-intensive. This is an indication that the game design is working just fine.
People are stuck in years-old arguments when current top-level play directly contradicts most of the continuing complaints.
|
On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game. We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage. Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not. The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch. So do you want to try again?
You've asserted that poker is something it is absolutely not. There is no such thing as a build order loss in poker, you can choose the absolute worst strat against another player and still have a chance to win in the end. And despite this, skill plays by far the largest role in the game, around the 80% you're hoping for. Maybe that's why I enjoy strategy over mechanics, btw. I can see more easily how skillful people are for their choices, because I'm used to a game where mechanics are clicking buttons and launching a tracker software.
As usual you're telling people what they should like. Nachtwind had a great quote about that in the IEM thread. I should probably put it in my sign, I have to justify myself on my taste so often on this forum it's getting scary.
Also, you're illustrating the exact reason why we can never do anything with these threads. SC2 is problematic because of opposite things. Koreans win too much, it sucks, koreans don't win enough, it sucks. People have different beefs for the game, but everytime something looks like it could be used to promote their view, they just add it to the fire as if it was a complex whole. It's not. It's a random bunch of contradictory complaints mixed together by the powers of internet and entitlement.
|
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
|
On October 14 2013 08:23 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game. We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage. Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not. The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch. So do you want to try again? Yeahhhh most of this entire post is bullshit. Forcefield really doesn't have the sort of terrible effect on the game that people claim it does. There's a lot of skillful play that revolves around using and baiting and countering forcefields. It's not the exact same sort of skillful play that existed in SC:BW, but it still leads to a lot of cool interactions. Splitting/engagement skills have become so much better than they were when the game came out. You can check out the sC retirement thread for 2 examples of games between top pros where a current mid-masters players would mop the floor with them with better engagements alone. Most top-level games between similarly skilled players include several 10 second or longer engagements with the winner slowly chipping advantages away from the loser. As players get better and better, the engagements get longer and longer and more micro-intensive. This is an indication that the game design is working just fine. People are stuck in years-old arguments when current top-level play directly contradicts most of the continuing complaints.
Force fields are still a major problem, they still take away from micro. An example of a better design would be something around the idea of FF that had hp something that increases the micro of the battle not decreasing the micro in the battle. Force Fields are also responsible for this shitty Protoss gameplay you have had for so long in SC2. Tier 1 sucks because of FF. So you end up with the turtle race that sits back and then auto wins on tier 3 most of the time.
I still dont buy into the splitting thing, people may have gotten better, but battles seem to be still to rare in SC2 and are too decisive.
And speaking of year old arguments, how many times have we heard the "as players get better" statement. Do we need to wait til 2020 for players to finally learn how to play sc2 so it can become the true esport?
|
On October 14 2013 09:47 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 08:23 RampancyTW wrote:On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game. We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage. Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not. The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch. So do you want to try again? Yeahhhh most of this entire post is bullshit. Forcefield really doesn't have the sort of terrible effect on the game that people claim it does. There's a lot of skillful play that revolves around using and baiting and countering forcefields. It's not the exact same sort of skillful play that existed in SC:BW, but it still leads to a lot of cool interactions. Splitting/engagement skills have become so much better than they were when the game came out. You can check out the sC retirement thread for 2 examples of games between top pros where a current mid-masters players would mop the floor with them with better engagements alone. Most top-level games between similarly skilled players include several 10 second or longer engagements with the winner slowly chipping advantages away from the loser. As players get better and better, the engagements get longer and longer and more micro-intensive. This is an indication that the game design is working just fine. People are stuck in years-old arguments when current top-level play directly contradicts most of the continuing complaints. Force fields are still a major problem, they still take away from micro. An example of a better design would be something around the idea of FF that had hp something that increases the micro of the battle not decreasing the micro in the battle. Force Fields are also responsible for this shitty Protoss gameplay you have had for so long in SC2. Tier 1 sucks because of FF. So you end up with the turtle race that sits back and then auto wins on tier 3 most of the time. I still dont buy into the splitting thing, people may have gotten better, but battles seem to be still to rare in SC2 and are too decisive. And speaking of year old arguments, how many times have we heard the "as players get better" statement. Do we need to wait til 2020 for players to finally learn how to play sc2 so it can become the true esport? No, they don't. They simply change the micro from in-battle-oriented to pre-battle-oriented micro. And with things like medivac pickups, burrow movement etc. there's absolutely some in-battle micro to be had with them, too.
Protoss play has become far less sentry-centric in HotS. They're still there, they still are useful, and they're still used, but far fewer general strategies seem to rely on them as anything more than a utility caster. This isn't 2012 anymore.
And the difference between my year-old argument and yours is that mine gets validated with every single month that passes, while yours becomes more and more baseless.
|
On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. ...the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays...
80% twitching 20% thinking, That's exactly the ratio that I don't want to see. YMMV.
And when we look closer at the twitching, the only aspect of microing that stays relevant the whole game is marine splitting. Banshee, Oracle or 'ling vs bling' microing wins you zilch in minute 18 or 23. And casters showing - or feigning - excitement about a player pulling back low health void rays are just fooling the viewers; it means virtually nothing looking at the huge armies, the quick troop construction/army replenishment and the terrible terrible damage everywhere.
|
On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
That is your subjective opinion just like I feel those things make the races even more diverse than before, and I am pretty sure Blizzard injected these macro abilities for one reason. It speeds up gameplay. They also added 6 vs 4 workers.
This makes spectating much more exciting early on since we can tell a players strategy a few minutes faster than in Broodwar. It also allows for tournaments to hold and cast more games, instead of only showing maybe 6-7 games we can see 10-20. More bang for your buck.
I do agree that battles end too quickly, but just like everything else in SC2s progression, it will only keep getting better. This is a fact. Even in the non split map scenarios, we get a tug of war type battle for a long time, with multiple engagements. And every time someone does actually lose with one bad engagement, isn't it always his/her fault? From a spectators stance we can see that mistake coming from a mile away, and had that player scouted better or not been so greedy they wouldn't be in that situation.
SC2 will die when Pro's reach a skill ceiling, but that won't happen. Like a previous poster said, a mid masters player right now thrown back in time to the first GSL would have a damn good chance at winning. Now imagine professional players in 3 years vs right now. We should be more positive.
|
I don't know why you blame this on the structure of wcs and not how stale the game actually is. the lcs format is fucking terrible for players and if sc2 content is over saturated then dota 2 content would be like eating 10 double downs a day...
the problem is that the game itself is boring to watch. sure there are fans who actually analyze the metagame and enjoy high level sc2 but beyond that the game can be extremely boring to watch
|
On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design...
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
So much haters in this topic ;( im very sad with dat.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design...
actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
|
On October 14 2013 10:03 peidongyang wrote:
the problem is that the game itself is boring to watch. sure there are fans who actually analyze the metagame and enjoy high level sc2 but beyond that the game can be extremely boring to watch
It is boring to watch in itself, the game doesn't have an immediately recognizable storyline visible.
There's no one small character, for example, up against a large group.
No lateral tasks, besides taking down Destructible Rocks, for example.
Not much environment interaction.
Clumped units isn't very fun.
|
On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
I'm not talking about which is better. But is trying to differentiate 3 races that are meant to be different really worse than adding menial tasks?
I disagree with the numbers the mechanics have and I disagree, flavor wise, with some mechanics choices. For example, chronoboost makes more sense as a terran mechanic probably called "jerry-rig" or "desperate adjustments" which has better synergy with terran addons. Mules, on the other hand, make sense as a way to "recoup" the high costs of protoss units and the dependence of Protoss on mass gateway builds creating the situation where protoss.
But all of that is meaningless, the point being that whether or not the macro mechanics boosts the player with good mechanics or nerfs the player with bad mechanics, in the end its arbitrary which race gets what mechanic and what mechanic is there to begin with.
You might prefer right clicking minerals every 17 seconds, other prefer production boosts, while others don't care for either. It's subjective, no need to pretend it isn't.
|
On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand.
Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
|
On October 14 2013 12:03 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics. really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand. Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
This is not emphasized enough in SC2, but mostly because it doesn't look exciting.
But these mechanics definitely allow a tonne of come backs, its just not the kind people on this site like.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 14 2013 11:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics. I'm not talking about which is better. But is trying to differentiate 3 races that are meant to be different really worse than adding menial tasks? I disagree with the numbers the mechanics have and I disagree, flavor wise, with some mechanics choices. For example, chronoboost makes more sense as a terran mechanic probably called "jerry-rig" or "desperate adjustments" which has better synergy with terran addons. Mules, on the other hand, make sense as a way to "recoup" the high costs of protoss units and the dependence of Protoss on mass gateway builds creating the situation where protoss. But all of that is meaningless, the point being that whether or not the macro mechanics boosts the player with good mechanics or nerfs the player with bad mechanics, in the end its arbitrary which race gets what mechanic and what mechanic is there to begin with. You might prefer right clicking minerals every 17 seconds, other prefer production boosts, while others don't care for either. It's subjective, no need to pretend it isn't.
I never said they shouldn't differently. Merely pointing out that the menial task of having to put your workers to work becomes an automatic thing and is pretty easy plus, at least for me, I'm forced to use my control groups and camera keys more to do it so it's just more practice.
I dunno, I think chronoboost works better with the way they designed protoss and mules, well, terran is the only race that can lift off so calling odwn mules makes sense from that perspective. Either way, chronoboost or mules can work for either race. Inject larvae only works for zerg lol.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 14 2013 12:03 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics. really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand. Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
I think at the start, it's about equal work wise but once you expand as terran in BW or actually, even as protoss expanding(don't play Zerg), I have to constantly watch my bases and move around my army and just do stuff. In SCII, usually I'll just 5 -> ss then just move the mouse around and sit back and relax since I just need 5 and 6 to make workers/units and I don't need to worry about making them mine or set rally points in comparison to BW. Either way, that wasn't my main point. I was mostly pointing out, that to me, it keeps me busy and gets me into the game when I have to 'work' for it.
I never said they kill comebacks. I said that the macro mechanics can make comebacks hard in some cases. You also seem to have missed my bolded text. I think the macro mechanics are but a factor in why comebacks are harder than in BW.
|
On October 14 2013 12:07 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 11:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics. I'm not talking about which is better. But is trying to differentiate 3 races that are meant to be different really worse than adding menial tasks? I disagree with the numbers the mechanics have and I disagree, flavor wise, with some mechanics choices. For example, chronoboost makes more sense as a terran mechanic probably called "jerry-rig" or "desperate adjustments" which has better synergy with terran addons. Mules, on the other hand, make sense as a way to "recoup" the high costs of protoss units and the dependence of Protoss on mass gateway builds creating the situation where protoss. But all of that is meaningless, the point being that whether or not the macro mechanics boosts the player with good mechanics or nerfs the player with bad mechanics, in the end its arbitrary which race gets what mechanic and what mechanic is there to begin with. You might prefer right clicking minerals every 17 seconds, other prefer production boosts, while others don't care for either. It's subjective, no need to pretend it isn't. I never said they shouldn't differently. Merely pointing out that the menial task of having to put your workers to work becomes an automatic thing and is pretty easy plus, at least for me, I'm forced to use my control groups and camera keys more to do it so it's just more practice. I dunno, I think chronoboost works better with the way they designed protoss and mules, well, terran is the only race that can lift off so calling odwn mules makes sense from that perspective. Either way, chronoboost or mules can work for either race. Inject larvae only works for zerg lol.
You misunderstood then, someone commented that the macro mechanics is badly designed--I was pointing out the macro mechanic in BW is right clicking minerals. Neither is worse or more difficult than the other, just showing that his implicit statement that BW's macro mechanics was better designed that, design wise, BW macro mechanics are very bland.
What would be great would be something between both. Something as flavorful SC2's macro mechanics and something as tedious as BW's macro mechanics.
As for the Mule/Chrono comment, I feel that the whole "human gumption" speeding up production makes more sense for Terran and aliens using tractor beams on minerals makes more sense for Protoss. Mules are less abusable in Protoss but allows them to not be so money starved, allowing them to afford to warp in units in many places while chrono in terran prevents them from simply floating to an expo, dropping 6-10 mules, and the flying away when spotted.
But that's a personal thing for me, Mules work for terran as is, chrono works for protoss as is. Change isn't needed balance wise, I simply like them flavor wise 
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 14 2013 12:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 12:07 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics. I'm not talking about which is better. But is trying to differentiate 3 races that are meant to be different really worse than adding menial tasks? I disagree with the numbers the mechanics have and I disagree, flavor wise, with some mechanics choices. For example, chronoboost makes more sense as a terran mechanic probably called "jerry-rig" or "desperate adjustments" which has better synergy with terran addons. Mules, on the other hand, make sense as a way to "recoup" the high costs of protoss units and the dependence of Protoss on mass gateway builds creating the situation where protoss. But all of that is meaningless, the point being that whether or not the macro mechanics boosts the player with good mechanics or nerfs the player with bad mechanics, in the end its arbitrary which race gets what mechanic and what mechanic is there to begin with. You might prefer right clicking minerals every 17 seconds, other prefer production boosts, while others don't care for either. It's subjective, no need to pretend it isn't. I never said they shouldn't differently. Merely pointing out that the menial task of having to put your workers to work becomes an automatic thing and is pretty easy plus, at least for me, I'm forced to use my control groups and camera keys more to do it so it's just more practice. I dunno, I think chronoboost works better with the way they designed protoss and mules, well, terran is the only race that can lift off so calling odwn mules makes sense from that perspective. Either way, chronoboost or mules can work for either race. Inject larvae only works for zerg lol. You misunderstood then, someone commented that the macro mechanics is badly designed--I was pointing out the macro mechanic in BW is right clicking minerals. Neither is worse or more difficult than the other, just showing that his implicit statement that BW's macro mechanics was better designed that, design wise, BW macro mechanics are very bland. What would be great would be something between both. Something as flavorful SC2's macro mechanics and something as tedious as BW's macro mechanics. As for the Mule/Chrono comment, I feel that the whole "human gumption" speeding up production makes more sense for Terran and aliens using tractor beams on minerals makes more sense for Protoss. Mules are less abusable in Protoss but allows them to not be so money starved, allowing them to afford to warp in units in many places while chrono in terran prevents them from simply floating to an expo, dropping 6-10 mules, and the flying away when spotted. But that's a personal thing for me, Mules work for terran as is, chrono works for protoss as is. Change isn't needed balance wise, I simply like them flavor wise
Fair enough. Some of the mechanics of BW comes from limitations of the engine and UI, others were built in by the design team such as the limited unit selection and casting. I see your point about the chronoboost/mule but ya, I think it's fine as is. I think it's the least of the worries for SCII lol
|
On October 14 2013 12:12 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 12:03 FeyFey wrote:On October 14 2013 11:44 BigFan wrote:On October 14 2013 11:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2013 08:31 jkim91 wrote:On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote:
We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better. Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw. Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design... actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics. really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand. Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins. I think at the start, it's about equal work wise but once you expand as terran in BW or actually, even as protoss expanding(don't play Zerg), I have to constantly watch my bases and move around my army and just do stuff. In SCII, usually I'll just 5 -> ss then just move the mouse around and sit back and relax since I just need 5 and 6 to make workers/units and I don't need to worry about making them mine or set rally points in comparison to BW. Either way, that wasn't my main point. I was mostly pointing out, that to me, it keeps me busy and gets me into the game when I have to 'work' for it. I never said they kill comebacks. I said that the macro mechanics can make comebacks hard in some cases. You also seem to have missed my bolded text. I think the macro mechanics are but a factor in why comebacks are harder than in BW.
Comebacks are not "harder" because of macro mechanics though.
In SC2, you can clear drone lines and good macro allows Zerg to replace drones quickly enough to not be far behind.
Mules allows terran to quickly take an expo despite not having map control actually being able to abuse the lift mechanic on command centers as the fly to an expo, land, mine, then fly away when attacked.
Chrono allows tech switches to prevent Protoss from getting rock/paper/scissored out of a game.
These come backs are not very sexy. I'll never feel excited watching a zerg player replacing 10 drones in 2-3 hotkey strokes. But these mechanics definitely allow comebacks. Just, well, boring looking ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
