| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dutchfriese
2554 Posts
On November 01 2013 18:08 ejozl wrote: 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. "rather than give you a small edge" ? I'm honestly confused by your post. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It gives a player a huge edge so i'm confused tbh. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On November 01 2013 17:55 dutchfriese wrote: 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. And I guess that is where we disagree. Because I consider this EXTREMELY good. I don't want a game where your click speed is what seperates you from worse players. Sure micro should have a role, and does have a role. But I rather have it also important how you manage your economy (no that is not the same as how fast you had to click in BW just to mine), which units you decide to make (Yes I know there has been alot of bitching by BW players that that would be too important in SC2, I disagree), where you engage, how you engage, etc. Now by making it alot easier to properly kite with vikings for example, you imo only make the winner depend more on who can click faster. That might sound like a paradox, easier kiting yet you have to spend more clicks on it. The problem is that what is ignored is balance. If you make vikings a lolol kiting into eternity unit then you have to hit it quite hard with the nerf hammer on its stats. That means for the same effectiveness you have to spend more time clicking it. Those clicks aren't exactly the hardest one, definately easier than kiting now. But you do have to click a shitton. At the same time this comes at the cost of important of stuff like positioning your vikings. In the end you are just raising the required amount of clicks to play well, but does that mean there is more depth in the game? I don't think so. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3407 Posts
If you make micro with SC2 engine, units will be little more powerful. Micro will be good with both engines, but with the BW one, it's more crucial to do. | ||
|
dutchfriese
2554 Posts
On November 01 2013 18:10 Sissors wrote: And I guess that is where we disagree. Because I consider this EXTREMELY good. I don't want a game where your click speed is what seperates you from worse players. Sure micro should have a role, and does have a role. But I rather have it also important how you manage your economy (no that is not the same as how fast you had to click in BW just to mine), which units you decide to make (Yes I know there has been alot of bitching by BW players that that would be too important in SC2, I disagree), where you engage, how you engage, etc. Now by making it alot easier to properly kite with vikings for example, you imo only make the winner depend more on who can click faster. That might sound like a paradox, easier kiting yet you have to spend more clicks on it. The problem is that what is ignored is balance. If you make vikings a lolol kiting into eternity unit then you have to hit it quite hard with the nerf hammer on its stats. That means for the same effectiveness you have to spend more time clicking it. Those clicks aren't exactly the hardest one, definately easier than kiting now. But you do have to click a shitton. At the same time this comes at the cost of important of stuff like positioning your vikings. In the end you are just raising the required amount of clicks to play well, but does that mean there is more depth in the game? I don't think so. Well, clearly you didn't read my original post on the topic, i said the game needs to be rebalanced if this were to take effect. You underestimate the amount of management involved with economy in sc2 vs brood war. Sc2 is a JOKE compared to brood war. Managing economy in sc2 is like petting a dog. Honestly, you strike me as a person who has played very little brood war, and I don't think you understand the amount of APM that takes place to win a brood war match. It's not even about the amount of clicks. It's about the amount of necessary clicks AFTER macro, which currently in sc2 is relatively nonexistent, at least compared to brood war... it isn't even close. I understand the person that wins in sc2 is the one that has the the best map presence and "best micro"... so what? it's easy mode compared to a game like brood war; and that is precisely the reason why the winners are incredibly volatile. | ||
|
dutchfriese
2554 Posts
On November 01 2013 18:15 ejozl wrote: If you make micro with BW engine, units will be much more powerful. If you make micro with SC2 engine, units will be little more powerful. Micro will be good with both engines, but with the BW one, it's more crucial to do. crucial, key word. thanks for the simplistic analysis. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3407 Posts
So why do we want to make units act primitively and unrealistic. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On November 01 2013 18:22 dutchfriese wrote: Well, clearly you didn't read my original post on the topic, i said the game needs to be rebalanced if this were to take effect. But what you don't understand is that makes it automatically required you spend alot more time clicking, and makes positioning, strategy, tactics, etc less important. You underestimate the amount of management involved with economy in sc2 vs brood war. Sc2 is a JOKE compared to brood war. Managing economy in sc2 is like petting a dog. You have to click morei n BW yes. If you consider that managing an economy we can agree that you have to do more of it in BW. Honestly, you strike me as a person who has played very little brood war, and I don't think you understand the amount of APM that takes place to win a brood war match. It's not even about the amount of clicks. It's about the amount of necessary clicks AFTER macro, which currently in sc2 is relatively nonexistent, at least compared to brood war... it isn't even close. And what you don't seem to understand is that I think that is a GOOD thing. I don't think requiring you to click faster makes it a better game. I think it makes it a worse game. If clicking alot is more important, than automatically everything else is less important. I don't think positioning should be less important, or strategy, or unit composition, etc. Also I didn't play very little BW. I didn't play it at all. I used to play AOE games. Then a friend asked me if I would switch to SC2. (Who was on another continent than me so blizzard for a long time decided I wasn't allowed to play games with him). I pretty much laughed at him. Why would I want to play a click fest like BW was? But he told me it wasn't the case anymore in SC2, and gave me a guest code thingie (which promptly ruined my battle.net account since it was from another continent, and customer service EU told me to go to SEA, and other way around, in the end I just started copy pasting their mails to each other since apparantly directly talkign with each other was out of the question). I saw SC2 wasn't the clickfest BW was, and went to play it, and thats the story how you got stuck with me. I understand the person that wins in sc2 is the one that has the the best map presence and "best micro"... so what? it's easy mode compared to a game like brood war; and that is precisely the reason why the winners are incredibly volatile. If it is easy because I don't have to do 500 clicks to get an SCV to mine I still consider it a good thing. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say the winners are volatile due to the lack of required clicks. The winners are volatile because it is still a relative new game that is evolving. If it was volatile due to the lack of required clicks as you claim, then innovation would never have been able to dominate as he did. Because then also during his domination he would lose due to the lower skill ceiling or whatever. But he didn't, he won pretty much everything. He started losing because the meta evolved, balance patch, he became worse, pick one. But not because of randomness, then he would also have lost alot more during his domination period. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
The team that designed SC2 was not up to par. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20299 Posts
i fucking love you | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On November 01 2013 17:55 dutchfriese wrote: 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. APM is not what separated the best players from the second best. At high level Brood War, every one had really high apm. They were all pretty close to the human limit for eapm, so it wasn't about who had more apm, it was about who used the amount of apm that everyone had the best. For example, Hyuk had insane apm, but was a mediocre player by progamer standards. Flash, on the other hand, had average apm (by progamer standards), but was the best player of all time. What separated the men from the boys in progaming the most was by far strategy and decision making. Having more things to do than you have apm makes Brood War more strategically deep than it would be otherwise. It turns apm in to a resource that you must spend wisely, and that you can harass and limit access to for your opponent. | ||
|
Miragee
8542 Posts
On November 01 2013 18:35 Sissors wrote: 1. And what you don't seem to understand is that I think that is a GOOD thing. I don't think requiring you to click faster makes it a better game. I think it makes it a worse game. If clicking alot is more important, than automatically everything else is less important. I don't think positioning should be less important, or strategy, or unit composition, etc. 2. Also I didn't play very little BW. I didn't play it at all. I used to play AOE games. 3. And it makes no sense whatsoever to say the winners are volatile due to the lack of required clicks. The winners are volatile because it is still a relative new game that is evolving. If it was volatile due to the lack of required clicks as you claim, then innovation would never have been able to dominate as he did. Because then also during his domination he would lose due to the lower skill ceiling or whatever. But he didn't, he won pretty much everything. He started losing because the meta evolved, balance patch, he became worse, pick one. But not because of randomness, then he would also have lost alot more during his domination period. 1. I think this is one of the major problems in discussion around this topic, even before sc2 came out (I remember discussing a lot about this): Less clicking equally doesn't mean more depth or more room for strategic decisions. And this is what happened to SC2. Less clicking but also less depth and similar amount of strategic decisions which in the end is much less to distinct a good player from a very good player. 2. Did you ever asked yourself why AoE wasn't near as competetive as SC was? 3. Innovation won because of tweaked strategies and clean execution. He got volatile when he was figured out. SC2 has reached a stagnation (or damn close to stagnation) pretty early. If there are new strategies these are but just tweaks of current ones and don't happen very often. WoL stagnated before HotS, HotS is already close to being stagnated as well. Balance changes might change the meta a bit but thats not how a healthy meta shift should go. A meta should evolve base upon possibilities in the game itself. Hinting to the topic of this thread, this means that (for example) if units are more responsible, players will over time learn how to use them to overcome certain tactics because they have way more room and different ways to use the unit. That is player-developed use out of the unexplored potential of an unit. Balance patches are just number crunshing because a unit douldn't do the job it was supposed to do by the dev's (simple said). In the end, if you don't add depth to sc2 and stop balance updates (they will stop eventually), the game will stagnate relatively fast. And thus become even more volatile because if anything made players "dominate" in this game was because they were ahead of the current meta. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
SC2 is a very hard and complex game so I am slightly more forgiving of these issues and they would be much worse if the game wasn't, however, there is no reason not to go a little beyond of where we are at! A lot of these features could make the game a better spectator experience which is probably even the biggest appeal of SC2 too, more so than being easier / making it easier to get into cause it's already a billion times harder to get into than any other game out on the market currently (Partly because sc2 is quite complex but also a lot because a lot of games today are stupidly easy to the point where you'd think they were designed for people who grew up with no concept of computers and games / your mom) . There is of course the issue that after the rebalancing this would require, the usefulness of some units would be quite off limits for lower level players, so there is a fine line to walk, but as I already stated I actually think the major appeal of SC2 comes from it's complexity and it's fantastic ability as a spectator esport, so I think there is room to move abit more in the direction of more depth of micro without going too far. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
High apm requirements make strategic skill more relevant -- as long as you have equal apm to your opponent. Also, "clickfest"... At some point you have to accept you should just play civilization and that the game is not meant for you. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On November 01 2013 19:17 Miragee wrote: 2. Did you ever asked yourself why AoE wasn't near as competetive as SC was? Did you ever wonder if I care? I don't play a game because progamers do it. Oh sure I enjoy watching WCS when it happens to be a good time I don't have anything else planned, but I don't play the game because pros do, I play the game because I enjoy playing it. On November 01 2013 19:24 Grumbels wrote: @Sissors High apm requirements make strategic skill more relevant -- as long as you have equal apm to your opponent. Also, "clickfest"... At some point you have to accept you should just play civilization and that the game is not meant for you. So this it boils down to? If you are against making it more dependent on mechanics and less on everything else you shouldn't play SC2? Maybe, looking at the direction SC2 took, they don't agree with you at Blizzard HQ and instead agree with me. Ever realised what the S in RTS stands for? It isn't APM. It is strategy. Should we also add some other BW 'features'? Like only able to select one building? Also differentiates more between who can click fastest. I understand that the real-time part means that fast reactions and micro is an essential part of it too. I don't want that removed. But I also don't want it to become more important at the cost of other aspects of the game. But then apparantly I should move to Civilization. However why don't you just go to BW? I am already called a horrible person who should feel horrible about himself because I can't stand the graphics when watching it, so that isn't it either. Since it was a so much better game you can just enjoy that, while I enjoy SC2. Now you just sound like quite some of my opponents who have to be really buthurt at the end of the game and flame me because they lost to a player with alot less APM. | ||
|
flashimba
225 Posts
That's perfectly acceptable. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On November 01 2013 19:49 flashimba wrote: In summary, you don't want the game to become any harder for you. That's perfectly acceptable. So in summary: Your positioning, strategy and decision making sucks, so you want that to be less important. That's perfectly acceptable. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On November 01 2013 19:45 Sissors wrote: Did you ever wonder if I care? I don't play a game because progamers do it. Oh sure I enjoy watching WCS when it happens to be a good time I don't have anything else planned, but I don't play the game because pros do, I play the game because I enjoy playing it. So this it boils down to? If you are against making it more dependent on mechanics and less on everything else you shouldn't play SC2? Maybe, looking at the direction SC2 took, they don't agree with you at Blizzard HQ and instead agree with me. Ever realised what the S in RTS stands for? It isn't APM. It is strategy. Should we also add some other BW 'features'? Like only able to select one building? Also differentiates more between who can click fastest. I understand that the real-time part means that fast reactions and micro is an essential part of it too. I don't want that removed. But I also don't want it to become more important at the cost of other aspects of the game. But then apparantly I should move to Civilization. However why don't you just go to BW? I am already called a horrible person who should feel horrible about himself because I can't stand the graphics when watching it, so that isn't it either. Since it was a so much better game you can just enjoy that, while I enjoy SC2. Now you just sound like quite some of my opponents who have to be really buthurt at the end of the game and flame me because they lost to a player with alot less APM. Somehow I think it is more respectable to ask for more similarities to brood war (you know, the predecessor of sc2) than some other random game. Especially since the game is already largely reliant on apm and control. People just want the game to be fast, responsive and rewarding of micro skill, it is fun for them. Shooting it down because of your ideal view of being competitive by out strategizing your opponent with 50apm means that it is difficult to see how your opinion is relevant to others. | ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
The fact is that BW is unlike most RTS games in the way that its impossible to play a perfect game. To play perfectly you need so much EAPM that its inhuman, so players have to prioritize. Other RTS games usually place realistic demands for the players in terms of unit movements, production and map awereness. In BW those demands are far beyond human capabilities. Suddenly this micro trick that makes a unit massively OP is not an issue due to all the other stuff the player needs to use his time on. He can only focus on a few things, so while this OP trick might win the battle, its likely to lose him the war. /BW rant Now on to implementing these kinds of micro in SC2. It would definately add to the depth of the game, but as long as there are not enough other stuff for players to do, these kinds of OP micro tricks would actually hurt the balance. There is no middle road. Either the game gets much more demanding micro and macro tricks, or none at all. If only a few things are implemented they would make certain things so OP that it would severely limit the viable strategies at higher levels of play. I would love to see a lot of the ideas and mechanics tested in StarBow or Onegoal transferred to the real game, but half measures simply won't cut it. If these micro multipliers are implemented they need to be used together with other attention demanding features. | ||
|
MidnightZL
Sweden203 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
RSL Revival
Classic vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Maru
Online Event
Kung Fu Cup
BSL Team Wars
RSL Revival
Maestros of the Game
ShoWTimE vs Classic
Clem vs herO
Serral vs Bunny
Reynor vs Zoun
Cosmonarchy
Bonyth vs Dewalt
[BSL 2025] Weekly
RSL Revival
Maestros of the Game
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
