|
On November 01 2013 15:14 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 15:00 Falling wrote: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.
Thats what I don't get. People are all telling micro should be more important, so what do they want? A game where every single 'good' player can indefinately kite everything. While currently you really have to be paying attention to correctly kite with vikings, and yes there is a limit to it.
|
On November 01 2013 16:21 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 15:14 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 15:00 Falling wrote: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. Thats what I don't get. People are all telling micro should be more important, so what do they want? A game where every single 'good' player can indefinately kite everything. While currently you really have to be paying attention to correctly kite with vikings, and yes there is a limit to it.
A game where the better player will always win because they have superior APM/micro/macro. That is not how it currently is in Sc2.
|
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. Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 15:10 ETisME wrote: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.
of cause these changes will give players more alternatives. I am not arguing with that at all. But there can be alternatives in other forms as well.
Which kind of alternatives will be fine for the current pros and which kind will or will not be detrimental for the game?
But if LotV is really going to be release sooner than expected, we don't have time to test this type of big changes.
LotV will be THE BW which built upon SC1.
LotV is the last expansion, meaning that if we do put these changes in, SC2 would just turn into a "sc1" without BW content to perfect it.
What if for example, vikings become too strong at kiting that Toss lacking in good reliable anti air and obs are sniped too easily. No more expansion to somehow fix it and players will have to cope with what they have.
And I was not talking about pros that is lacking for starbow. I am talking about players are your average laddering players. The general audience.
I am talking about the complete lack of interest in this Starbow map which shred lights on whether the changes really do improve upon the game so much that people would do the switch and it didn't.
The map wasn't just lacking monetary attraction, it was lacking in people playing as well.
How Dota earn their big player base is not by having pro playing. It is by having a lot of people having fun and keep playing.
Starbow failed at attracting and retaining new players even for a year.
Sure there is the b.net 2.0 being shitty factor but hey, starbow was released at the lowest point of SC2 where everyone seeked ways on how to improve SC2, at the end everyone still sticked with the WoL, even though starbow is supposed to "fix" things.
Why? If it was simply people didn't aware of it, then maybe it would have been arguable that it was only a marketing issue. But it wasn't given that it was posted on all the biggest community forums and was a hot topic everywhere along with SC2 is dying threads.
|
On November 01 2013 16:19 dutchfriese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 16:15 iaguz wrote: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.
It's part of starcrafts design to test mechanics. Mechanics is how fast you can think and perform actions. It's not just about strategy and tactics (that is part of it though). It's simply how the starcraft games function.
|
Thanks for the informative and educational video, Lalush.
If the Blizzard design team can (or are allowed to) implement changes (they may not necessarily be the changes you propose) that lead to some, if not all, of the improvements you have indicated, then it would in all likelihood lead to a better SC2. Obviously, these would have to be in the LoTV beta as I do not think the changes necessary are realistically feasible for HoTS. They would also have to consider if these changes upset the apple cart too much in terms of SC2 as it currently is. But, if the required design changes are possible, then that is a decision that can be made by the designers after sufficient testing.
One point, though: if your aim is to improve SC2, I suggest that you consider editing the video so that the final 20 minutes or so of BW clips is either removed or cut and repackaged into the body of the argument. The addition of the long set of BW clips does little to enhance your argument as that is effectively finished by the 20 minute mark. Removal is one option. Another is to do what Nony did with his carrier video, and to edit the video in a shorter and tighter package where particular micro options of the types you have indicated are contrasted one game with the other. The Blizzard design team did take on board Nony's point and make changes to the carrier (even if these were poorly implemented). So, I think they would be open to more of the same. As it stands, I think your video falls short in being best able to convince and persuade - at least where it counts.
Good luck.
|
On November 01 2013 16:50 iaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 16:19 dutchfriese wrote:On November 01 2013 16:15 iaguz wrote: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. It's part of starcrafts design to test mechanics. Mechanics is how fast you can think and perform actions. It's not just about strategy and tactics (that is part of it though). It's simply how the starcraft games function.
and how does any of your post refute anything in lalush's video?
With the current game engine, it's actually REDUCING the speed players can perform actions. That's the entire point of lalush's video...
|
On November 01 2013 16:52 aZealot wrote:
One point, though: if your aim is to improve SC2, I suggest that you consider editing the video so that the final 20 minutes or so of BW clips is either removed or repackaged into the body of the argument. The addition of the long set of BW clips does little to enhance your argument as that is effectively finished by the 20 minute mark. Removal is one option. Another is to do what Nony did with his carrier video and to edit the video in a shorter and tighter package where particular micro options of the type you have indicated are contrasted one game with the other. The Blizzard design team did take on board Nony's point and make changes to the carrier (even if these appear to have been poorly implemented). So, I think they would be open to more of the same. As it stands, I think your video falls short in being best able to persuade and convince - at least where it counts.
Agreed. A 20 min video to watch is far more appealing to watch than a 45 min video.
|
On November 01 2013 16:29 dutchfriese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 16:21 Sissors wrote:On November 01 2013 15:14 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 15:00 Falling wrote: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. Thats what I don't get. People are all telling micro should be more important, so what do they want? A game where every single 'good' player can indefinately kite everything. While currently you really have to be paying attention to correctly kite with vikings, and yes there is a limit to it. A game where the better player will always win because they have superior APM/micro/macro. That is not how it currently is in Sc2.
this. i too think it's important a good player can mostly win off of superior mechanics unless he has really bad decision making.
|
So can anyone tell me already, how this adds depth to the micro in the game?
It's basically all just kiting, with same speed, isn't there more depth, when units act differently from each other and when in different numbers?
Also turret thing is just an idea, something that Hellions already have and Phoenix do automatically.
|
On November 01 2013 08:20 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote:
Can't believe the community is so much in favor of Lalush's arguments in this video, or why this is getting so much attention in the first place.
Okay, I know it, it's because all these kind of anti-Sc2 / pro-BW mechanic videos do this.
Video production was okay-ish although there's never an excuse to talk like you're about to fall asleep. Neither does it make much sense to have a 45min video if you actually on cover 18mins of the topic your discussing.
Anyways, my actual problem is the argumentation which seems to be lacking severely. Especially in regards to the whole damage point issue.
The only real argument, other than "in BW it's like this!" is his eSports idea; everything must be "Reliable, consistent and responsive" according to Lalush.
I don't see how differentiating damage point values aren't.
Reliable: They are, the damage point values have a fixed time. There's nothing randomized about it (or what there is negligible).
Consistent: Yes, it actually is consistent unless you want to look at it in a way where you can dismantle pretty much all Sc2 unit attributes. All vikings, marines etc. have the damage point of their unit type. Of course, they do not all have the same attack point across all unit types, but why should they? To remove unique behavior and micro mechanics? Not all units share the same movement speed, acceleration and whatever else. That's on purpose and not really an inconsistency.
Responsive: A clear yes to that as well. The attack point in itself is obviously a delay value, however as seen with the Vikings, they still immediately respond to an attack command and acquire targets and basically count down their attack point timing. It's not like your unit doesn't actually respond to what you do.
Of course you can look at these aspects in extreme ways and say that damage points don't fit the requirements, but then, what does.
The demonstrations in the video weren't very convincing either. So now I could easily kill a billion Corrupters with just a couple Vikings because Vikings now behave more similarly to Marines and Stutter-Step-Micro becomes EASIER and WAY MORE POWERFUL. You cannot mess it up any longer, after all you can't accidentally move your Vikings before they reached their damage point. So how do you compensate for that? For removing pretty much all units higher damage points to make em "more responsive" and whatnot?
But worse, why would I want more units to behave more and ultimately be microed more like e.g. Marines? Why isn't it okay that tanks aren't killing dozens of Roaches when retreating, why do they need to have these kind of turret mechanics? Because BW had it and it's kinda neat?
It's not even that I would disagree with this in all regards, perhaps e.g. Immortals could be made more unique by giving them that kind of turret firing attributes (while compensating in other ways). But in general I don't like the idea of vastly reducing certain stats like attack point and overall just having less options for unique unit behavior.
Why do Banshee's and Vikings have to have a super easy time kiting even the largest armies of Marines or Corruptors respectively? You say it's better for eSports but I don't see that. What I see is Banshee's now behaving like Marines and rather reducing the kind of Marine vs Banshee shenanigans that exist right now.
I simply don't feel like Lalush used good enough argumentation.
That the bigger TeamLiquid and especially /r/reddit crowd immediately wants Blizzard to hire everyone that makes videos or posts like this though, that's just worth a good laugh by now. That "Warcraft RTS: Alliance and Horde" mod being another example where people immediately go crazy after because it appears to be huge.
This is the great thing about TL and Reddit! We are able to steer development and shit on developers who work so hard to make the game as great as they can. Oh wait, we shouldn't do that, but apparently this is what the thread has become: a bandwagon for bashing on SC2. LEAVE BRITNEY SC2 ALONE.
+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2013 09:28 laegoose wrote:
Certainly Blizzard know about this stuff, they put these variables in the Editor.
And I hate to interrupt agressive BW-loving in this thread, but I'm glad in SC2 it is possible to actually play and micro instead of trying to get units in the right direction.
edit: typo
It's hard to tell who is in the majority on TL: the 'I want the game to be more fun like how BW is' or the 'please make the game easier because I like to win and winning is fun' crowd. My guesses are that Blizzard already knows the size of these crowds, and they will not do anything to displease them.
To make the game primitive like in BW instead of advancing SC2 in their own way is for Blizzard to admit that they tried but screwed up.
|
On November 01 2013 17:28 ejozl wrote:
So can anyone tell me already, how this adds depth to the micro in the game?
It's basically all just kiting, with same speed, isn't there more depth, when units act differently from each other and when in different numbers?
Also turret thing is just an idea, something that Hellions already have and Phoenix do automatically.
It's not kiting with the same speed. Did you watch the video? He edited every unit with his/its own game "speeds". The entire point of the video was that one cannot currently "kite" nearly as effectively with certain units such as vikings, as one could could effectively kite with said unit under brood war mechanics. Point is, brood war offered all(and mainly professional) players the ability to beat their opponent with superior micro management. Sc2 on the other hand does not.
How do hellions currently have this in place? AFAIK phoenix's are the ONLY unit that currently has it in place atm.
|
On November 01 2013 17:40 dutchfriese wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:28 ejozl wrote:
So can anyone tell me already, how this adds depth to the micro in the game?
It's basically all just kiting, with same speed, isn't there more depth, when units act differently from each other and when in different numbers?
Also turret thing is just an idea, something that Hellions already have and Phoenix do automatically. It's not kiting with the same speed. Did you watch the video? He edited every unit with his/its own game "speeds". The entire point of the video was that one cannot currently "kite" nearly as effectively with certain units such as vikings, as one could could effectively kite with said unit under brood war mechanics. Point is, brood war offered all(and mainly professional) players the ability to beat their opponent with superior micro management. Sc2 on the other hand does not.
And thats simply not true. Micro management is very important in SC2.
But then why should kiting with vikings be made so much easier? Earlier you said SC2 should be a game where the player with superior macro, micro and mechanics should win. Yet all this does is making clicking fast more important at the cost of other aspects of the game, such as positioning. I guess I just don't think fast clicking is important enough as it is.
And it continious to baffle me how people are continuing to ignore balance implications with the excuse that this is 'game design'. Imagine hellions with instant damage point + rotating turret, that completely changes the dynamics between lings and hellions, and not for the better imo.
|
On November 01 2013 17:27 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 16:29 dutchfriese wrote:On November 01 2013 16:21 Sissors wrote:On November 01 2013 15:14 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 15:00 Falling wrote: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. Thats what I don't get. People are all telling micro should be more important, so what do they want? A game where every single 'good' player can indefinately kite everything. While currently you really have to be paying attention to correctly kite with vikings, and yes there is a limit to it. A game where the better player will always win because they have superior APM/micro/macro. That is not how it currently is in Sc2. this. i too think it's important a good player can mostly win off of superior mechanics unless he has really bad decision making.
If they don't win, they're not better, now are they? I'm glad SC2 is not like BW in the sense that mechanical skills are rewarded inproportionally much and strategical brilliance doesn't help you that much without that particular mechanical skillset. If the game was all about macro and control, I probably wouldn't be watching it in the first place...
|
Awesome job ... and I wish you could take over from Dustin and David.
On November 01 2013 17:29 flashimba wrote:
It's hard to tell who is in the majority on TL: the 'I want the game to be more fun like how BW is' or the 'please make the game easier because I like to win and winning is fun' crowd. My guesses are that Blizzard already knows the size of these crowds, and they will not do anything to displease them.
To make the game primitive like in BW instead of advancing SC2 in their own way is for Blizzard to admit that they tried but screwed up.
The last paragraph shows which crowd you belong to ... the "newer is automatically better and we can never ever learn anything from something old"-crowd. You have to PROVE that something is better and you are welcome to counter LaLush with your own video or logical argument as to why the units should stay unmicroable and "muddy".
BW was far from primitive, because it actually allowed for PLAYER SKILL while SC2 is the true primitive one here because it does NOT give the player ways to use the units more efficiently. The only "skills" in SC2 are economy management and arranging of clump-parts into a better shaped clump.
|
On November 01 2013 17:45 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:40 dutchfriese wrote:On November 01 2013 17:28 ejozl wrote:
So can anyone tell me already, how this adds depth to the micro in the game?
It's basically all just kiting, with same speed, isn't there more depth, when units act differently from each other and when in different numbers?
Also turret thing is just an idea, something that Hellions already have and Phoenix do automatically. It's not kiting with the same speed. Did you watch the video? He edited every unit with his/its own game "speeds". The entire point of the video was that one cannot currently "kite" nearly as effectively with certain units such as vikings, as one could could effectively kite with said unit under brood war mechanics. Point is, brood war offered all(and mainly professional) players the ability to beat their opponent with superior micro management. Sc2 on the other hand does not. And thats simply not true. Micro management is very important in SC2. But then why should kiting with vikings be made so much easier? Earlier you said SC2 should be a game where the player with superior macro, micro and mechanics should win. Yet all this does is making clicking fast more important at the cost of other aspects of the game, such as positioning. I guess I just don't think fast clicking is important enough as it is.
Huh?
You do realize that macro was much, much, much..... much harder in brood war vs sc2... right? There was no auto mine in sc2, players had to manually select each and every worker and tell them to mine minerals. That alone equals much more "clicking" vs sc2.
The problem with your premise is "i guess i just don't think fast clicking is important enough as it is". Fast clicking is what separated the champions of brood war from the pack. In brood war, if you didn't have 300+ apm you were literally nothing. Starcraft 2 on the other hand... this is not the case. Why? Because the skill ceiling is DRAMATICALLY lower.
300 apm brood war =/= 300 apm sc2, and that's the entire point of lalush's video...
Sc2 could be better than brood war, but it will not be better until the micro mechanics are addressed. It's really as simple as that.
|
On November 01 2013 17:48 Zackeva wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:27 fluidin wrote:On November 01 2013 16:29 dutchfriese wrote:On November 01 2013 16:21 Sissors wrote:On November 01 2013 15:14 RampancyTW wrote:On November 01 2013 15:00 Falling wrote: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. Thats what I don't get. People are all telling micro should be more important, so what do they want? A game where every single 'good' player can indefinately kite everything. While currently you really have to be paying attention to correctly kite with vikings, and yes there is a limit to it. A game where the better player will always win because they have superior APM/micro/macro. That is not how it currently is in Sc2. this. i too think it's important a good player can mostly win off of superior mechanics unless he has really bad decision making. If they don't win, they're not better, now are they? I'm glad SC2 is not like BW in the sense that mechanical skills are rewarded inproportionally much and strategical brilliance doesn't help you that much without that particular mechanical skillset. If the game was all about macro and control, I probably wouldn't be watching it in the first place...
Exactly. This is why Bisu loses left and right to Terrans in BW despite having arguably the best mechanics for a Protoss player.
And despite this, Bisu is still the best, LoL.
|
But how is it different having Vikings flying faster while shooting, in opposed to them stopping up a little, while shooting.
The latter simply doesn't make the micro as gamebreaking, but it's still there..
|
When we asked for more microable units in the beta testing, this is exactly what we meant.
|
On November 01 2013 18:00 ejozl wrote:
But how is it different having Vikings flying faster while shooting, in opposed to them stopping up a little, while shooting.
The latter simply doesn't make the micro as gamebreaking, but it's still there..
how is it not "gamebreaking" exactly? Vikings have 9 range (IIRC) and stalkers have 6 range (IIRC), so that .XX seconds is VERY game breaking in the hands of a professional.
|
how is it not "gamebreaking" exactly? Vikings have 9 range (IIRC) and stalkers have 6 range (IIRC), so that .XX seconds is VERY game breaking in the hands of a professional.
I didn't mean the change, but rather that BW stutterstep would make it much more important to utilize, rather than giving you a small edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
