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.
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.
You are wrong about BW. The unreachable mechanical ceiling actually serves to add 'value' to strategic and most importantly tactical elements of the game.
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.
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.
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.
The difference is that I am not asking for less micro, I just think more is a bad idea. I am not asking it to be more like Civ, I am asking it to be not more like BW. The game is fast (seriously we have had enough topics here that the game is too fast and should be slower, like BW...), it is responsive (that there is a delay before vikings fire does not mean it isn't responsive) and it definately rewards micro skill.
And I don't see how your opinion is relevant to others if you only want more APM required because BW had it.
@Shader, if you really think I am going to watch a random 45 min vid in a language I dont understand without any description on how it is relevant I am going to start linking zeitgeist movies.
You reduce every point for the allowance of improved unit control and usage to having a hardon for APM. Everything you have written about BW is factually incorrect and confirms that you are an ignoramus who has made zero effort to know what the shit your arguing about.
Plansix is excused because Dustin Bowder is his favourite dad whats yours?
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.
Micro in SC2 is simply overshadowed by MASS (RE)PRODUCTION to the point of becoming pointless. This makes the game boring to watch ...
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.
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.
So why are you even bothering with sc2 then? It's meant to be competetive on a very high level, drawing viewership and sponsors alike and showing very high skill matches for their excitement. That could lead into you enjoying the game because it stimulates your inner competetive instincts and you enjoy the controls/strategies/mechanics of the game and like to fight against your own cap. If you don't like that, it's perfectly fine. I have nothing against AoE or the like (I enjoyed them myself playing on lans), but you can't turn on the metric's of those games on games that are supposed to be highly competetive (and blizzard wants that for the sake of money and publicity). Sadly you didn't read the rest of my comment but still use the same argument of lower strategic depth because of higher requiered apm, which was invalidated before.
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.
Micro in SC2 is simply overshadowed by MASS (RE)PRODUCTION to the point of becoming pointless. This makes the game boring to watch ...
You did not even watch the game to begin with (your knowledge of what's up makes sure we know about that), what are you talking about :S?
On November 01 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote: My god, this thread really summoned a few simple minds to come out of the closet. Too bad Blizz devs were one of them. I mean, wasnt David Kim supossed to be a great BW player whos job it was to explain the team what made BW great. Then he is clueless about carrier micro. Probably i should even mention micro explained in this thread. Like wtf....
The team that designed SC2 was not up to par.
Blizzard did try to make BW HD in beginning. And BW was made what it is due to like hundred of reasons that worked as one, yeah, accidental masterpiece. Also, i think alot of people you guys mistaken for bashers just do not understand how micro stuff in BW being great is relevant to SC2. Yes, Lalush did not convince me with fact that micro that allows to abuse stacks of units is good. Granted units prioritizing separation over attack does suck, you got me in that point (yes, i died to marines when was fighting them with mutas and am butthurt now).
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.
Micro in SC2 is simply overshadowed by MASS (RE)PRODUCTION to the point of becoming pointless. This makes the game boring to watch ...
You did not even watch the game to begin with (your knowledge of what's up makes sure we know about that), what are you talking about :S?
Do you have another line of argument apart from the obvious ad hominem?
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.
Micro in SC2 is simply overshadowed by MASS (RE)PRODUCTION to the point of becoming pointless. This makes the game boring to watch ...
You did not even watch the game to begin with (your knowledge of what's up makes sure we know about that), what are you talking about :S?
Do you have another line of argument apart from the obvious ad hominem?
As obvious as it is, you did admit you did not play the game and your posts about automatically maximized DPS that is so good, nobody wants to avoid that, make sure that you never heard about splash damage units either. So, what is the point of argument, again?
auto turret for tanks and immortal sounds really cool, but unlimited unit selection makes things like stacked air micro way imba, it will only introduce Air Deathball.
these air mechanics doesn't belong to sc2, because air units are already too powerful(banshee opener in every tvt, air play in pvp, mutas zvz, void rays and tempest air supremacy etc), and RTS should be all about ground armies.
it worked in BW because ground units like goliaths, marines,hydra and dragoon, templars were great against air.
Oh man we should all get together and make it so that every 10 seconds you have to feed your unis or else they starve, (maybe by pressing the F Key 1 time for a zergling and 5 times foe something big like a ultralisk.) We would call it StarCraft: Hunger Games. Would take way more skill.
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.
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.
You are completly missing the point if you think taking away action from macro is a good thing. RTS is about time allocation to maximize your percentage to win with the current system they minimized the amount of action needed to macro and the unit is not that microable so player can't really stand out from eachother. If you want a strategy game then don't play rts.
On November 01 2013 20:47 Velouria wrote: Oh man we should all get together and make it so that every 10 seconds you have to feed your unis or else they starve, (maybe by pressing the F Key 1 time for a zergling and 5 times foe something big like a ultralisk.) We would call it StarCraft: Hunger Games. Would take way more skill.
When I see your extract of BW gameplay I feel ashamed for never play this game in my life.If LotV get all the adjustment that you suggest in your video it will be fantastic. It's a awesome work that you've done LaLush.
On November 01 2013 20:47 Velouria wrote: Oh man we should all get together and make it so that every 10 seconds you have to feed your unis or else they starve, (maybe by pressing the F Key 1 time for a zergling and 5 times foe something big like a ultralisk.) We would call it StarCraft: Hunger Games. Would take way more skill.
Did you even watch the video?
Yes. And even I, someone who only played broodwar the last 3 or 4 years before SC2 came out could list 3 or 4 things not in this video or in any of These threads, "breadth of gameplay." SC2 is so fundamentally different than SC1 that its not even worth comparing the two. SC2 is harder to position and micro and yet people complain it is too easy? Or to counter too volatile! At this point these threads aren't a debate, they aren't constructive. My best advice is either makig a SC2ProMod! Or actually keep playing and watching SC2 and not look back, because to be honest SC2 keeps getting better, let me know when it hits a skill ceiling. Cause it won't.
My opinion is that probably all the points mentioned in the OP are legit except the anti-overkill system..
This anti-overkill system is probably the only thing that SC2 is better than BW.. That's what makes Siege-Tanks viable.. The new ground unit's pathing is much superior to BW's and if this didn't exist, tanks would be totally useless.. I mean tanks are kinda useless ATM, but with the overkill - they'd be totally useless..
======================================================== And though the other points made are very legit - still - my opinion is to better not implement all of the suggestions, but some of them might improve the game drastically though.. Maybe one per unit or sth, and that's because - SC2 isn't THAT bad game after all, and it has like few problems (matchup-based, not game-engine based I think) ATM..
After all it has MACRO-mechanics over micro mechanics to work with.. It's easier, but also in a lot of ways harder.. In BW low-eco games were much harder to play, yes, but in SC2 high-eco games are harder to play properly IMO.. You just can't keep your money low no matter what the player is (except Flash, you can give the guy like all 20 bases on and he'll be able to run them perfectly I think.. )
Still - we just can't see it well enough cause everyone has to have good Macro-mechanics in SC2 therefore the only real game-decider remains decision-making and multitasking to determine the winner..
======================================================== The things pointed here in this topic are good yes, and very good ideas to improve the dynamics of the game, but still = they seem like "bonuses" to me ATM.. The matchups need be fixed first namely - late-game PvZ turtle-fest as well as mech vs Protoss.. and maybe THEN implement some of the improvements mentioned to some of the units that would become less used or sth overall..
On November 01 2013 20:47 Velouria wrote: Oh man we should all get together and make it so that every 10 seconds you have to feed your unis or else they starve, (maybe by pressing the F Key 1 time for a zergling and 5 times foe something big like a ultralisk.) We would call it StarCraft: Hunger Games. Would take way more skill.
Did you even watch the video?
Yes. And even I, someone who only played broodwar the last 3 or 4 years before SC2 came out could list 3 or 4 things not in this video or in any of These threads, "breadth of gameplay." SC2 is so fundamentally different than SC1 that its not even worth comparing the two. SC2 is harder to position and micro and yet people complain it is too easy? Or to counter too volatile! At this point these threads aren't a debate, they aren't constructive. My best advice is either makig a SC2ProMod! Or actually keep playing and watching SC2 and not look back, because to be honest SC2 keeps getting better, let me know when it hits a skill ceiling. Cause it won't.
Your analogy failed because the proposed changes would allow for greater micro-ability not make players jump through hoops.
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.
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.
So why are you even bothering with sc2 then? It's meant to be competetive on a very high level, drawing viewership and sponsors alike and showing very high skill matches for their excitement. That could lead into you enjoying the game because it stimulates your inner competetive instincts and you enjoy the controls/strategies/mechanics of the game and like to fight against your own cap. If you don't like that, it's perfectly fine. I have nothing against AoE or the like (I enjoyed them myself playing on lans), but you can't turn on the metric's of those games on games that are supposed to be highly competetive (and blizzard wants that for the sake of money and publicity). Sadly you didn't read the rest of my comment but still use the same argument of lower strategic depth because of higher requiered apm, which was invalidated before.
Does that mean I, and 99% of the paying customers of Blizzard, could get a full refund?
Apparantly according to you I shouldn't play SC2 if I just play it for fun and not for competition. 90% of those ranked are already plat or lower. And if you really play to do it competitive, you are above plat. Then add that the ALOT of players don't play ranked at all, add that of those in diamond or higher many also just play for fun and not for competition, and you end up with a really small minority who meet your requirements.
Yes blizzard wants pro playing for sake of money and publicity, but not at the cost of their entire casual player base.
On November 01 2013 20:47 Velouria wrote: Oh man we should all get together and make it so that every 10 seconds you have to feed your unis or else they starve, (maybe by pressing the F Key 1 time for a zergling and 5 times foe something big like a ultralisk.) We would call it StarCraft: Hunger Games. Would take way more skill.
Did you even watch the video?
Yes. And even I, someone who only played broodwar the last 3 or 4 years before SC2 came out could list 3 or 4 things not in this video or in any of These threads, "breadth of gameplay." SC2 is so fundamentally different than SC1 that its not even worth comparing the two. SC2 is harder to position and micro and yet people complain it is too easy? Or to counter too volatile! At this point these threads aren't a debate, they aren't constructive. My best advice is either makig a SC2ProMod! Or actually keep playing and watching SC2 and not look back, because to be honest SC2 keeps getting better, let me know when it hits a skill ceiling. Cause it won't.
Your analogy failed because the proposed changes would allow for greater micro-ability not make players jump through hoops.
So would my insta-shoot, insta-turn blink thors. That doesn't mean it is automatically a good idea.
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.
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.
You are completly missing the point if you think taking away action from macro is a good thing. RTS is about time allocation to maximize your percentage to win with the current system they minimized the amount of action needed to macro and the unit is not that microable so player can't really stand out from eachother. If you want a strategy game then don't play rts.
Then go one and beat Dear if players can't really stand out from each other.
Also it makes little sense to tell me I shouldn't play a real-time-strategy game if I want a strategy game. I don't want a pure strategy game, but I also don't want a pure mechanics game.
On November 01 2013 21:05 Velouria wrote: ... SC2 is harder to position and micro ...because to be honest SC2 keeps getting better
What? Do you really think that or is just your SC2 player's pride? I loved SC2 a lot but the game is far away to becoming better and better.. the best shape of SC2 was in the middle of WoL, prior the queen/infestors patch. Actually you have to wait for the world finals to see some "different" games, every other game even at the top of the pro scene is always the same, boring, macro race to the first maxout.
EPT
