|
On November 01 2013 14:22 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:19 StarStruck wrote:On November 01 2013 14:03 ETisME wrote:On November 01 2013 13:57 StarStruck wrote:
I have no idea what the guy above me is talking about. Do you know blizzard is planning to release lotv faster than they did with hots? Do you know points like economy system, limited unit selection, pathing, micro etc were all raised up during end of WoL? Do you know lots of community projects were created like onegoal, SC:BW and starbow triying to imitate the BW as well as some of the "improved" system? Do you know that almost no one is playing those games? Do you know that no one is even in the chat channels? Do you know that blizzard added the carrier leash range and yet hardly any is actually using it? This isn't the first time you were unclear (might be 2nd language; I don't really know), but this is your third post this week alone where I went what the bloody hell is he talking about? - I might have overheard the first thing. Doesn't matter, everything with Blizzard is soonish. - We brought up such things before. I wasn't born yesterday, but more often than not Blizzard there is a misunderstanding (see the thread about phoenixes for more). - SC2BW you mean? Everyone knows that B.Net 2.0 was shit at release and custom maps didn't get a fair shake out of the community as a result. Also, Blizzard sanctions the maps, so the tournaments and players are pretty much forced to play those. This isn't Dota all over again. Also we're not talking about doing a direct import here. These are all technical. - See what I said above. - As for the Carriers. There are many reasons we never reach that point man and that doesn't address collision either. Even then, they're still pretty cost/time inefficient when it comes to the current state of the game. LOL You heard it here first, guys. Bnet 2.0 killed SC2BW/Starbow/etc.
LOL No. It's the fact the B.Net 2.0 arcade/UMS settings search sucked dick (ghost town). You also seemed to miss the part that pro players are going to continue to play what Blizzard sanctions. In other words because I just know you'll find a way to misconstrue it. The UMS/mod community never got a fair shake. Don't put words in my mouth. :V
|
On November 01 2013 14:29 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:25 L3monsta wrote:On November 01 2013 14:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Side note: I really don't understand the reasoning behind these tricks being primarily "defensive" tricks.
They're just as valid when you're on the attack as when you're on the defense, and they'll boost aggressive capabilities just as much as defensive capabilities. Because it mostly applies to kiting which is defensive because it requires the opponent attacking you (offensive). If the opponent is defending then they won't want to give chase.. ...No, no it doesn't. It applies to any situation where you want your units to attack theirs without being hit back, since these would give you the maneuverability to do so. Kiting alone can be used as an aggressive maneuver to whittle down a defense trying to chase you away, complete ignoring all of the "potshot" maneuvers that can arise from this.
If you want your units to attack without yours being hit back you have to take advantage of the range of your unit.. aka kiting. And thus if the opponent is in the defensive position they shouldn't give chase, rather they should fall back. Which is why it applies mostly to when you're defending, but also applies in any situation where the opponent allows you to kite them.
|
On November 01 2013 14:19 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:03 ETisME wrote:On November 01 2013 13:57 StarStruck wrote:
I have no idea what the guy above me is talking about. Do you know blizzard is planning to release lotv faster than they did with hots? Do you know points like economy system, limited unit selection, pathing, micro etc were all raised up during end of WoL? Do you know lots of community projects were created like onegoal, SC:BW and starbow triying to imitate the BW as well as some of the "improved" system? Do you know that almost no one is playing those games? Do you know that no one is even in the chat channels? Do you know that blizzard added the carrier leash range and yet hardly any is actually using it? This isn't the first time you were unclear (might be 2nd language; I don't really know), but this is your third post this week alone where I went what the bloody hell is he talking about? - I might have overheard the first thing. Doesn't matter, everything with Blizzard is soonish. - We brought up such things before. I wasn't born yesterday, but more often than not Blizzard there is a misunderstanding (see the thread about phoenixes for more). - SC2BW you mean? Everyone knows that B.Net 2.0 was shit at release and custom maps didn't get a fair shake out of the community as a result. Also, Blizzard sanctions the maps, so the tournaments and players are pretty much forced to play those. This isn't Dota all over again. Also we're not talking about doing a direct import here. These are all technical. - See what I said above. - As for the Carriers. There are many reasons we never reach that point man and that doesn't address collision either. Even then, they're still pretty cost/time inefficient when it comes to the current state of the game.
but blizzard didn't say "soonish" for lotv, they explicitly stated that lotv will release in a shorter time span than it did with hots.
B.net 2.0 being rubbish didn't stop other custom games being more popular, including 1v1 obs map.
Blizzard's sanction on maps or shitty b.net 2.0 don't change the fact that these projects are not as popular as other custom maps.
Starbow (which is probably the most popular project of them all) had 2 tournaments but none were popular, with the 2nd tournament thread not even reaching 2 pages.
And as for your carrier argument. This is what I mean by we should improve on what we have now, not going back and import the cool micro tricks because it is a different game.
implement these micro tricks will not suddenly make the game more fun simply because these tricks were also tied to BW's economy system and production rate, pathing, AI etcetc
Blizzard is against the idea of revamping the game, be it changing up economy system or pathing.
If they weren't willing to do it in Hots, I would prefer them to stay off doing it in lotv because it might fk up what the WoL and Hots built upon and don't have another expansion to fall back on.
|
On November 01 2013 14:35 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:22 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 14:19 StarStruck wrote:On November 01 2013 14:03 ETisME wrote:On November 01 2013 13:57 StarStruck wrote:
I have no idea what the guy above me is talking about. Do you know blizzard is planning to release lotv faster than they did with hots? Do you know points like economy system, limited unit selection, pathing, micro etc were all raised up during end of WoL? Do you know lots of community projects were created like onegoal, SC:BW and starbow triying to imitate the BW as well as some of the "improved" system? Do you know that almost no one is playing those games? Do you know that no one is even in the chat channels? Do you know that blizzard added the carrier leash range and yet hardly any is actually using it? This isn't the first time you were unclear (might be 2nd language; I don't really know), but this is your third post this week alone where I went what the bloody hell is he talking about? - I might have overheard the first thing. Doesn't matter, everything with Blizzard is soonish. - We brought up such things before. I wasn't born yesterday, but more often than not Blizzard there is a misunderstanding (see the thread about phoenixes for more). - SC2BW you mean? Everyone knows that B.Net 2.0 was shit at release and custom maps didn't get a fair shake out of the community as a result. Also, Blizzard sanctions the maps, so the tournaments and players are pretty much forced to play those. This isn't Dota all over again. Also we're not talking about doing a direct import here. These are all technical. - See what I said above. - As for the Carriers. There are many reasons we never reach that point man and that doesn't address collision either. Even then, they're still pretty cost/time inefficient when it comes to the current state of the game. LOL You heard it here first, guys. Bnet 2.0 killed SC2BW/Starbow/etc. LOL No. It's the fact the B.Net 2.0 arcade/UMS settings search sucked dick (ghost town). You also seemed to miss the part that pro players are going to continue to play what Blizzard sanctions. Don't put words in my mouth. Here's the much easier summary:
The difference in game quality was so small that players (including those that initially liked the mods) literally couldn't be bothered to put up with a couple minutes of hassle to play them.
Man, that's compelling stuff.
Here's the reality: if a mod were really that good, if it REALLY improved the quality of play that much, it wouldn't be dead the way every single one of the pseudo-BW mods are. Especially in the current much-more-friendly custom game system.
|
Dude, you know everything is in Blizzard time so even when they say that. You know to take it with a grain of salt. Shit happens. It goes beyond the arcade. Most people don't know where to look and we didn't even have chat channels back then. B.Net 2.0 wasn't ready period.
It goes back to where the money is. Players aren't going to invest their time on competitive UMS mods/maps because at the end of the day they have to practice for what Blizzard sanctions. If it isn't Blizzard sanctioned then good luck getting the ball rolling. Same reason why Bounds and all sorts of other fun maps were popular in the old B.Net as well, but this goes beyond modding and creating UMS like I said before when it comes to the dynamics of the current state of the game. These rule sets can be applied to anything. Doesn't matter if there were two mini tournaments. See what I said about the current model for Tournaments and how Blizzard handles stuff.
You can improve both. Not just one concept man. Once again we're talking about core dynamics which can be applied in anything. They can do it whenever they please. It's entirely up to them.
|
On November 01 2013 14:42 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:35 StarStruck wrote:On November 01 2013 14:22 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 14:19 StarStruck wrote:On November 01 2013 14:03 ETisME wrote:On November 01 2013 13:57 StarStruck wrote:
I have no idea what the guy above me is talking about. Do you know blizzard is planning to release lotv faster than they did with hots? Do you know points like economy system, limited unit selection, pathing, micro etc were all raised up during end of WoL? Do you know lots of community projects were created like onegoal, SC:BW and starbow triying to imitate the BW as well as some of the "improved" system? Do you know that almost no one is playing those games? Do you know that no one is even in the chat channels? Do you know that blizzard added the carrier leash range and yet hardly any is actually using it? This isn't the first time you were unclear (might be 2nd language; I don't really know), but this is your third post this week alone where I went what the bloody hell is he talking about? - I might have overheard the first thing. Doesn't matter, everything with Blizzard is soonish. - We brought up such things before. I wasn't born yesterday, but more often than not Blizzard there is a misunderstanding (see the thread about phoenixes for more). - SC2BW you mean? Everyone knows that B.Net 2.0 was shit at release and custom maps didn't get a fair shake out of the community as a result. Also, Blizzard sanctions the maps, so the tournaments and players are pretty much forced to play those. This isn't Dota all over again. Also we're not talking about doing a direct import here. These are all technical. - See what I said above. - As for the Carriers. There are many reasons we never reach that point man and that doesn't address collision either. Even then, they're still pretty cost/time inefficient when it comes to the current state of the game. LOL You heard it here first, guys. Bnet 2.0 killed SC2BW/Starbow/etc. LOL No. It's the fact the B.Net 2.0 arcade/UMS settings search sucked dick (ghost town). You also seemed to miss the part that pro players are going to continue to play what Blizzard sanctions. Don't put words in my mouth. Here's the much easier summary: The difference in game quality was so small that players (including those that initially liked the mods) literally couldn't be bothered to put up with a couple minutes of hassle to play them. Man, that's compelling stuff. Here's the reality: if a mod were really that good, if it REALLY improved the quality of play that much, it wouldn't be dead the way every single one of the pseudo-BW mods are. Especially in the current much-more-friendly custom game system.
Not true, people go to arcade to play arcade games, in other words games that don't play like SC2. If they wanted that then they'd play SC2. However that doesn't mean that those mods haven't improved on SC2 in ways. This suggestion is one of those ways. (also these changes are for the pro scene... pros don't play these kind of mods so that's why it needs to be in the real thing)
|
On November 01 2013 14:37 L3monsta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:29 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 14:25 L3monsta wrote:On November 01 2013 14:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Side note: I really don't understand the reasoning behind these tricks being primarily "defensive" tricks.
They're just as valid when you're on the attack as when you're on the defense, and they'll boost aggressive capabilities just as much as defensive capabilities. Because it mostly applies to kiting which is defensive because it requires the opponent attacking you (offensive). If the opponent is defending then they won't want to give chase.. ...No, no it doesn't. It applies to any situation where you want your units to attack theirs without being hit back, since these would give you the maneuverability to do so. Kiting alone can be used as an aggressive maneuver to whittle down a defense trying to chase you away, complete ignoring all of the "potshot" maneuvers that can arise from this. If you want your units to attack without yours being hit back you have to take advantage of the range of your unit.. aka kiting. And thus if the opponent is in the defensive position they shouldn't give chase, rather they should fall back. Which is why it applies mostly to when you're defending, but also applies in any situation where the opponent allows you to kite them. First: do you even play Starcraft 2?
Also, do you not understand that these mechanics just as easily allow you to do forward-shoot-backward as backward-shoot-backward?
Because for starters, kiting is used extensively as part of aggressive action in SC2. What happens is you press a defender into a position where he feels compelled to push back a bit to get more breathing room. You then kite them until they can no longer continue to push you back. You then do the dance again. Kiting is often VERY aggressive in SC2.
Secondly, the same mechanics that would allow for stupidly good kiting would allow for stupidly good aggressive shots as well. Large groups of air units would be able to poke forward and dance back over. And over. And over. Until finally the defender was forced to push back, in which case the first scenario would happen.
Basic critical thinking skills should allow you to understand why these mechanics boost aggressive play just as much as defensive play, but in lieu of that, I'll leave you with these two extremely basic example concepts.
|
On November 01 2013 14:46 StarStruck wrote:
Dude, you know everything is in Blizzard time so even when they say that. You know to take it with a grain of salt. Shit happens. It goes beyond the arcade. Most people don't know where to look and we didn't even have chat channels back then. B.Net 2.0 wasn't ready period.
It goes back to where the money is. Players aren't going to invest their time on competitive UMS mods/maps because at the end of the day they have to practice for what Blizzard sanctions. If it isn't Blizzard sanctioned then good luck getting the ball rolling. Same reason why Bounds and all sorts of other fun maps were popular in the old B.Net as well, but this goes beyond modding and creating UMS like I said before when it comes to the dynamics of the current state of the game. These rule sets can be applied to anything. Doesn't matter if there were two mini tournaments. See what I said about the current model for Tournaments and how Blizzard handles stuff.
You can improve both. Not just one concept man. Once again we're talking about core dynamics which can be applied in anything. They can do it whenever they please. It's entirely up to them. There's an extremely small percentage of the playerbase good enough that they're forced to devote almost all of their play time to exclusively Blizzard-sanctioned Starcraft 2. This is a pretty awful excuse for why nobody plays the mods. If they were really more fun and made for better games, than your non-pro or semi-pro GMs, high masters players etc. would play them when they needed a break from laddering or whatever.
Instead, they play monobattles. Why? Because monobattling is fun.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On November 01 2013 14:34 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:32 nOlifeTERRAN wrote:
Ah man if only banshees were that micro intensive! Yeah, it would be really nice watching every single Terran pro never lose a banshee to marines ever, with zero change in micro effort Because that would definitely be good for the game
That's silly. If that were true, than no Terran would lose a wraith ever or no Zerg would lose a mutalisk ever.
#1 it's a tremendous time investment that makes it harder to keep up with macro.
#2, the banshees are like paper airplanes to a large group of stimmed marines (and if they aren't, you could make it that way to balance them) therefore, you must keep microing to keep them doing damage and keep them alive. And if it turns out that it is impossible to catch the darn things, you can shrink the attack range on the things. If a unit is not very maneuverable, then you need greater range or speed to make up for it. Increase it's maneuverability and you can back off on some of those over-compensations that kept the sluggish unit alive.
#3 as the banshee harass continues, more and more marines are being added to their numbers (defenders reinforcement advantage), plus turrets are thrown down. This means the defender can start splitting marine groups to trap banshees or fall back to turrets which are safe zones.
In other words, this sort of micro allows unit interaction on both sides. This isn't a 'fungal all your army and you can't move anything' micro from the waning days of WoL. It's not one-sided micro like trapped units in a FF encirclement. This is both players microing and counter-microing their hearts out. And that is exactly what makes an exciting competive game and a spectator friendly game. Moves and counter-moves. This is what esports is made of.
|
On November 01 2013 14:46 StarStruck wrote:
Dude, you know everything is in Blizzard time so even when they say that. You know to take it with a grain of salt. Shit happens. It goes beyond the arcade. Most people don't know where to look and we didn't even have chat channels back then. B.Net 2.0 wasn't ready period.
It goes back to where the money is. Players aren't going to invest their time on competitive UMS mods/maps because at the end of the day they have to practice for what Blizzard sanctions. If it isn't Blizzard sanctioned then good luck getting the ball rolling. Same reason why Bounds and all sorts of other fun maps were popular in the old B.Net as well, but this goes beyond modding and creating UMS like I said before when it comes to the dynamics of the current state of the game. These rule sets can be applied to anything. Doesn't matter if there were two mini tournaments. See what I said about the current model for Tournaments and how Blizzard handles stuff.
You can improve both. Not just one concept man. Once again we're talking about core dynamics which can be applied in anything. They can do it whenever they please. It's entirely up to them.
Some popular community maps released back when b.net at its worst are still among the most popular ones now.
Marine arena for example.
Most people don't know where to look is just a flawed reason, how did all the other custom map got popular and retained the audience then?
And it's not about money, it's about fun.
People didn't start playing dota knowing maybe they can make a living off dota. It's about fun and retaining players.
Icefrog didn't balance Dota because he wants it to be esport.
if these two tournaments did not gain a big viewership and the maps didn't get a lot of players, who would want to invest in a tournament with this game?
|
On November 01 2013 15:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:34 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 14:32 nOlifeTERRAN wrote:
Ah man if only banshees were that micro intensive! Yeah, it would be really nice watching every single Terran pro never lose a banshee to marines ever, with zero change in micro effort Because that would definitely be good for the game That's silly. If that were true, than no Terran would lose a wraith ever or no Zerg would lose a mutalisk ever. #1 it's a tremendous time investment that makes it harder to keep up with macro. #2, the banshees are like paper airplanes to a large group of stimmed marines (and if it isn't, you could make it that way to balance it) therefore, you must keep microing to keep them doing damage and keep them alive. #3 as the banshee harass continues, more and more marines are being added to their numbers (defenders reinforcement advantage), plus turrets are thrown down. This means the defender can start splitting marine groups to trap banshees or fall back to turrets which are safe zones. In other words, this sort of micro allows unit interaction on both sides. This isn't a 'fungal all your army and you can't move anything' micro from the waning days of WoL. It's not one-sided micro like trapped units in a FF encirclement. This is both players microing and counter-microing their hearts out. And that is exactly what makes an exciting competive game and a spectator friendly game. Moves and counter-moves. This is what esports is made of. "Never" was a bit of hyperbole. But here's the thing: All 3 of those points are ALREADY HOW IT PLAYS OUT. The way it is now, the top guys don't lose banshees. Or at least not without getting at least 5-6 kills on those banshees. And forcing stims/scans/vikings.
With the changes, the top guys would literally not take damage on the banshees before stim was out (or Vikings were out) and thus would be able to kite for longer, in addition to being able to do more damage per kiting session due to the added responsiveness.
You're now looking at uncloaked banshees getting 10-12 kills, and probably not even dying. Lowering their health wouldn't even really affect this, because the important part is that the banshees are no longer getting hit.
So what do you do, lower their range? Lower their health anyways, so that the non-top guys still do the same amount of damage as they do now due to negligence? Any of the nerfs you make to balance their early game harassment viability makes them more and more worthless as the game goes on, because they'll be less sturdy, shoot later due to lower range, etc.
So really all that happens is the unit LOSES utility on net, while the top players abuse the banshee to the point that non-tech openers aren't even viable in TvT against them, because no matter how well you micro your unstimmed marines you just can't keep up with the banshee.
If your net goal is to make it so the currently superb Banshee harassers do even more damage with their banshee harass, than this change is for you. If your goal is to not arbitrarily screw up all of the early game unit interactions and/or screw up the midgame/large army utility of units trying to avoid the early-game screw ups then you would probably be less than excited by this change.
|
I maintain my belief since the beta; that there's too much fighting the interface, and not enough fighting the opponent.
That and a lot of core design issues that haven't been adequately addressed. If I were in charge, I'd make it a priority to balance things so that there can be a large map variety and the game still works; so that it'd work with easy expansions, or hard expansions, or one easy then all hard expansions, or different size expansions, or different resource supplies in the main.
I believe that could be done with proper work.
It'd certainly allow for more variety in the meta if maps could vary more.
|
If you don't think such changes would give players more alternatives then I don't know what to say. That alone adds more quality. Take the game for what it is right now. We see the same old unit compositions because they're cost efficient and mobile. If we added more dynamic control to certain units they would be way more effective and serve multiple purposes. It opens new doors and allows the player to woe you with more inspired play. The difference is night and day. In either case it doesn't really matter what you or I think. It's in Blizzard's court.
On November 01 2013 15:10 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 14:46 StarStruck wrote:
Dude, you know everything is in Blizzard time so even when they say that. You know to take it with a grain of salt. Shit happens. It goes beyond the arcade. Most people don't know where to look and we didn't even have chat channels back then. B.Net 2.0 wasn't ready period.
It goes back to where the money is. Players aren't going to invest their time on competitive UMS mods/maps because at the end of the day they have to practice for what Blizzard sanctions. If it isn't Blizzard sanctioned then good luck getting the ball rolling. Same reason why Bounds and all sorts of other fun maps were popular in the old B.Net as well, but this goes beyond modding and creating UMS like I said before when it comes to the dynamics of the current state of the game. These rule sets can be applied to anything. Doesn't matter if there were two mini tournaments. See what I said about the current model for Tournaments and how Blizzard handles stuff.
You can improve both. Not just one concept man. Once again we're talking about core dynamics which can be applied in anything. They can do it whenever they please. It's entirely up to them. Some popular community maps released back when b.net at its worst are still among the most popular ones now. Marine arena for example. Most people don't know where to look is just a flawed reason, how did all the other custom map got popular and retained the audience then? And it's not about money, it's about fun. People didn't start playing dota knowing maybe they can make a living off dota. It's about fun and retaining players. Icefrog didn't balance Dota because he wants it to be esport. if these two tournaments did not gain a big viewership and the maps didn't get a lot of players, who would want to invest in a tournament with this game?
These players are in the business to make money. RTS players don't really have a lot of options. Players can either view it in the positive light, "Okay, I accept this new challenge. I want to continue my career as a RTS player and make the best of it" and then there's the other guys "I'm not having fun anymore for reason a, b, c etc. I'm going to do something else I enjoy to make money." At the end of the day, it's hard work and whatever fun/passion they had prior takes the backseat. Usually the success comes with winning, or else they feel burdened. The RTS community is small enough as is. It's not easy to get something launched off the ground man. It takes a lot of persistence and ofc they won't get the viewership when you look at everyone else they're competing with. Look at all those new podcasts alone that are trying to find an audience. lol I'm amazed some of those guys are still trying.
|
Canada11607 Posts
@Rampancy
Rebalance comes with the territory. The precise solution to the balance is immaterial to me because I believe the overall quality of gameplay is worth tinkering around with current unit stats to get it working. But I wouldn't see it for banshees alone, but for many other units.
That's where we will start have progamers distinguish themselves with style. Similar to how MKP early on distinguished himself with marine micro. Or Jaedong's zerglings, Bisu's probes, Jaedong's storms, Stork's reaver micro. Players were known for being especially good at certain tactics. And yes this happens in SC2 (I did just use MKP after all). But this would allow more branching skill sets.
This also helps with comebacks. Learn to micro like a madman and if you get into a bad engagement, maybe you can even the odds with properly microed units until your micro catches up. Yes, you would have to watch for early timings that could would level any other options, but the more responsive the micro, the better imo.
To steal an argument from the recent past, progamers would not be limited by quirky game engine mechanics. They wouldn't have to fight against the computer to micro. And if there is one thing we learned from arguments from 2011-2012, fighting against the computer is a bad thing. 
|
On November 01 2013 15:40 StarStruck wrote:
If you don't think such changes would give players more alternatives then I don't know what to say. That alone adds more quality. Take the game for what it is right now. We see the same old unit compositions because they're cost efficient and mobile. If we added more dynamic control to certain units they would be way more effective and serve multiple purposes. It opens new doors and allows the player to woe you with more inspired play. The difference is night and day. In either case it doesn't really matter what you or I think. It's in Blizzard's court. It might lead to more alternatives. It might not.
These changes wouldn't exist in a vacuum. The whole game wouldn't just stay the same except for "Oh hey I can start building unit ____ because I can micro them now!" You might have to end up re-balancing entire tech trees just to keep things from being too under/overpowered. Some units might end up in the "too good not to use" category, and de facto force certain builds/responses the way things are now.
|
A hugely informative video, but was the 30 minutes of BW clips really necessary? Using clips to show examples is alright, but that was just overkill.
|
On November 01 2013 15:48 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 15:40 StarStruck wrote:
If you don't think such changes would give players more alternatives then I don't know what to say. That alone adds more quality. Take the game for what it is right now. We see the same old unit compositions because they're cost efficient and mobile. If we added more dynamic control to certain units they would be way more effective and serve multiple purposes. It opens new doors and allows the player to woe you with more inspired play. The difference is night and day. In either case it doesn't really matter what you or I think. It's in Blizzard's court. It might lead to more alternatives. It might not. These changes wouldn't exist in a vacuum. The whole game wouldn't just stay the same except for "Oh hey I can start building unit ____ because I can micro them now!" You might have to end up re-balancing entire tech trees just to keep things from being too under/overpowered. Some units might end up in the "too good not to use" category, and de facto force certain builds/responses the way things are now.
No one said anything about a vacuum. It changes the whole game. No shit Sherlock. You don't think MMM would still be good? You think everything would resort to Hellions? Nah, man. Terran alone would be scary as shit. I could see drops galore and hellions harassing a nat at the same time. It does give players more openings and more effective ways to harass and defend with a whole lot less. There is nothing wrong with empowering units so the enemy has to pay attention for them. There is nothing wrong with allowing a miner to be able to scout and micro within the enemy's base so they can get a better idea of what's coming. If something is too good. We always make more changes.
|
thank you lalush for the video, i remember your old thread "micro where art though"? IIRC, and I'm glad you followed up with this video.
At the end of the day this is precisely the reason why brood war > sc2. Considering the fact that macro has been completely nerfed into the ground, the skill ceiling in sc2 is actually very low and the reason it is so low is because of everything you demonstrated in your video.
I used to think that with sc2's simplistic macro mechanics, it would raise the skill ceiling at the professional level; but in reality it hasn't been raised because professionals are limited in their ability to beat their opponents through superior micro.
Blizzard needs to seriously watch this video and think about it. I realize that the game is balanced around the current engine but IMO blizz needs to take lalush's advice and rebalance the game with the new mechanics.
I completely understand why the game is the way it currently is.. it's all about looks and graphics. However, when professionals are playing for tens of thousands of dollars in tournaments, fuck looks IMO. Fixing micro mechanics should be THE NUMBER ONE priority for blizzard at this point in time. They can work on the next expansion after they fix this.
Playing a game for graphics is like watching porn for the story.....
|
On November 01 2013 15:17 zlefin wrote:
I maintain my belief since the beta; that there's too much fighting the interface, and not enough fighting the opponent.
.
Disagree. Fighting the interface is the equivalent of fitness for sports athletes. If anything they should make it harder!
|
On November 01 2013 16:15 iaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 15:17 zlefin wrote:
I maintain my belief since the beta; that there's too much fighting the interface, and not enough fighting the opponent.
. Disagree. Fighting the interface is the equivalent of fitness for sports athletes. If anything they should make it harder!
How is it the equivalent?
a marathon =/= a boxing match. Sc2 isn't a marathon... It's a 1v1 battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
