On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote: Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different. stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines. this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders. late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even.
Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2.
Wrong. The difference was just as drastic.
Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons.
Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2.
Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'.
BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much.
This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense.
You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated.
Ahm... All Marines that actually can get in firing range will still maximise their DPS and be as effective as possible?
Whats your point?
Point is that maximizing DPS of ALL marines won't be done automatically. It will be done for 1-2 (at most 3, assuming serious range difference) lines marines, rest will just bunch up behind. Hence the concaves, because it is the real way to maximize DPS. Oh, noticed your answer. Cute, so you do not play the game and thus compare 2 different units with completely different roles. Makes sense, yes.
On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote: Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different. stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines. this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders. late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even.
Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2.
Wrong. The difference was just as drastic.
Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons.
Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2.
Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'.
. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense.
well, this explains why you think marines and stalkers have the same role at least lol
I have always found it funny that you keep comparing the two VERY different unit in a VERY different deathball as an example of why unit collusion size is a problem. Just in case you don't know, Blizzard IS aware that the amount of units it clumps has a great impact on balance. Thor size DID get a change just because of some balancing issue. Similarly, Blizzard KNOWS clump of marines will out dps stalkers, this is why colossus and storms are there to force terran bio to split, emp etcetc
If you don't even understand the game that much and only try to argue for balance using your own brain power and common sense, your arguments are obviously going to be limited by your own level of brain power.
On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote: Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...]
The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units.
The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port.
I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games.
Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted.
You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences.
And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions.
Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.)
a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position.
Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack.
Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home.
More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter.
Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass.
PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements.
Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army.
Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got).
Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example.
I will agree with Duran the OP is saying for everything.
I want to add that SC2 is certainly fun for the newcomers but for us old dudes who were playing years of BW, there is just something missing from the game, which there is no way to get it back, unless they redo the engine or whatnot, which will not happen.
On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote: Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different. stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines. this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders. late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even.
Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2.
Wrong. The difference was just as drastic.
Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons.
Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2.
Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'.
BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much.
This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense.
You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated.
Ahm... All Marines that actually can get in firing range will still maximise their DPS and be as effective as possible?
Whats your point?
Point is that maximizing DPS of ALL marines won't be done automatically. It will be done for 1-2 (at most 3, assuming serious range difference) lines marines, rest will just bunch up behind. Hence the concaves, because it is the real way to maximize DPS. Oh, noticed your answer. Cute, so you do not play the game and thus compare 2 different units with completely different roles. Makes sense, yes.
SCII's AI will automatically spread marines pretty fast as long as they aren't at a choke which in turn maximizes damage output. His point was actually right: SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. In BW, the AI was slower so you had to 'help' it with the spread to try to maximize dps and due to unit and their model(collision model its called I believe), you won't get anywhere near the dps of marines in SCII. Btw, last part of your post. For someone like you who also isn't that familiar with BW(you mentioned several games with AI in another thread if I recall), you shouldn't be comparing the games either ^^ Just saying lol.
On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote: Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...]
The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units.
The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port.
I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games.
Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted.
Then don't use them blindly.
You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences.
And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions.
Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.)
a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position.
Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack.
Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home.
More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter.
Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass.
PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements.
Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army.
Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got).
Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example.
Would you?
Well, I have no problem with having a reaver in the game (assuming it can be balanced). I doubt you need to remove warpgate for that. or want to.
On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote: Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...]
The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units.
The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port.
I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games.
Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted.
Then don't use them blindly.
You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences.
And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions.
Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.)
a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position.
Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack.
Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home.
More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter.
Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass.
PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements.
Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army.
Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got).
Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example.
Would you?
Well, I have no problem with having a reaver in the game (assuming it can be balanced). I doubt you need to remove warpgate for that. or want to.
No you don't need to remove Warpgate BUT you do need to buff up Gateway units to a certain extend in order to fill Protoss's mantra of being a bastion of impenetrable force. Zealots and Stalkers at this place in time are way too weak in order to fulfill that status quo. In BW you had those Zealot running around kamikaze the entire battleground fearlessly. Its something that SC2's Zealot certain lack in spirit.
The idea is this, gateway units should retain accordingly to its lore in terms of durability. You can keep the WG mechanics HOWEVER when units are warped in, they lose their Shields (the magnitude is argumentative) in order to make it up for the ability. Sort of they themselves utilized psi energy in order to summon themselves. This way players have a CHOICE of being ubiquitous but without endurance or endurance but more time is required to come in.
Blizzard in a sense tried to do a 1/2 ass version of both by not really committing fully to one idea but attempt to "balance" it out. Sometime you need to mitigate the powerfulness of one unit by counterbalance with another one. And making a unit that can turn the tide of a battle, THAT is what makes the audience wet their panties.
On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote: [quote] Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2.
Wrong. The difference was just as drastic.
Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons.
Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2.
Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'.
BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much.
This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense.
You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated.
Ahm... All Marines that actually can get in firing range will still maximise their DPS and be as effective as possible?
Whats your point?
Point is that maximizing DPS of ALL marines won't be done automatically. It will be done for 1-2 (at most 3, assuming serious range difference) lines marines, rest will just bunch up behind. Hence the concaves, because it is the real way to maximize DPS. Oh, noticed your answer. Cute, so you do not play the game and thus compare 2 different units with completely different roles. Makes sense, yes.
SCII's AI will automatically spread marines pretty fast as long as they aren't at a choke which in turn maximizes damage output. His point was actually right: SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. In BW, the AI was slower so you had to 'help' it with the spread to try to maximize dps and due to unit and their model(collision model its called I believe), you won't get anywhere near the dps of marines in SCII. Btw, last part of your post. For someone like you who also isn't that familiar with BW(you mentioned several games with AI in another thread if I recall), you shouldn't be comparing the games either ^^ Just saying lol.
1st. Nearly instantly only works in open space And even then they will probably bunch up actually spreading out, since SC2 is only calculating pathing only once before actually giving a path to each unit, so spreading out helps, maybe not as much as clumping up marines helps storm in BW but close. Also yes, in BW marines won't ever get close to DPS of SC2 marines, but saying that they maximize their DPS nearly instantly is BS. + Show Spoiler +
2nd. Not few games with AI, but ~50 games on Iccup, before i got fed up with mouse behavior and what not. But yeah, that's not much to compare. 3rd. I do not compare unit behaviors in games to begin with, i compare the 'feel' of them without pretending to be objective, aka purely subjective thing that is downright stupid to be criticized.
On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote: Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...]
The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units.
The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port.
I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games.
Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted.
Then don't use them blindly.
You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences.
And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions.
Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.)
a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position.
Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack.
Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home.
More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter.
Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass.
PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements.
Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army.
Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got).
Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example.
Would you?
-Frontloaded production, 100-mineral no-downside proxying of whole bases +Reavers? = Game sanity +++++++++++
To the people who say they played BW and something is missing.... I felt the same way and it is true there are some flaws.. But this is a different game and it has its own "something" if you put in the time which I have and realized that even though the game has its flaws it can be a really fun game to play. I think competing in lower leagues when you don't understand the game as much can be annoying and frustrating especially coming from BW because of how fast and hard you can die. Once you get used to the pace of the game it COMPLETELY changes your outlook on it. I remember BW being a game of completely good mechanics to be better you had to be all over the map and control groups limited quite a bit so that you had to be all over the map Quite a bit more in order to be good and ofcourse you needed really good micro and "strategy" which took advantage of these behaviors of AI that developed with game play. I think SC2 while it may not be EXACTLY what BW was I think it has its own style of Skill Cap. When I was first switching to SC2 from BW I felt like any noob could play this with all the help you get from the built in AI but with being in Diamond from Season 1 when it was the highest and now being GM I realize that the game has very good depth that you can exactly see when just watching a game on WCS or just playing the game in Plat or Diamond or even masters for that matter. So I no longer feel like the gameplay is the issue but more or less the issues at hand are being dealt with in trying to change the WCS format and trying to encourage more players to join us by realizing the depth of the game and how fun it actually can be
On October 18 2013 12:41 Ioannis wrote: I will agree with Duran the OP is saying for everything.
I want to add that SC2 is certainly fun for the newcomers but for us old dudes who were playing years of BW, there is just something missing from the game, which there is no way to get it back, unless they redo the engine or whatnot, which will not happen.
I'm a newcomer, having played this game for only 3 months and I've already had enough of it. Pretty much every game I pick up these days is more fun than SC2 and I have Dota 2 for all my 'competitive' needs, a game which I've been playing on and off for past 7 years.
This game lives only thanks to the ladder system. Us humans are competitive by nature and SC2 ladder is one way to entertain those needs. I think without the ladder, no one would even play this game. The illusion of progression via ladder system is the only thing that keeps people hooked to this game
On October 18 2013 12:41 Ioannis wrote: I will agree with Duran the OP is saying for everything.
I want to add that SC2 is certainly fun for the newcomers but for us old dudes who were playing years of BW, there is just something missing from the game, which there is no way to get it back, unless they redo the engine or whatnot, which will not happen.
I'm a newcomer, having played this game for only 3 months and I've already had enough of it. Pretty much every game I pick up these days is more fun than SC2 and I have Dota 2 for all my 'competitive' needs, a game which I've been playing on and off for past 7 years.
This game lives only thanks to the ladder system. Us humans are competitive by nature and SC2 ladder is one way to entertain those needs. I think without the ladder, no one would even play this game. The illusion of progression via ladder system is the only thing that keeps people hooked to this game
^^^^^^ This, dont play anymore but do watch from time to time, the problem with sc2 is its simply boring
EPT
