|
Played some Starbow recently, mechanics were super fun compared to SC2's. Or maybe it was fun because it's new and completely different for me, while SC2's gameplay didn't have any major change since 2010.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2013 04:23 Rainling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2013 03:06 Rainling wrote:On November 02 2013 02:48 phodacbiet wrote:
Hopefully blizzard change something though. These changes, even if just a few, would be great for the game because it would increase the skill cap. At the highest level we need to know/see the pros do some super crazy human micro. While the godly decision level making of the pros is cool too, it gets boring after awhile because people want to see action, not "oh his ball moved up, oh now its down, oh its up again! Wow! Concave! Wow! Lazer!" Sc2 right now focuses way too much on the pre fight and once the fight start there is not much you can do to win if youre behind (unless you aren't too far behind). But let's be real here, blizzard will probably say something like "we won't do any of these changes because itll change too much of the game and its too late. Sorry please buy LoTV!" A good example of this is how popular Dota 2 is right now. Dota is to a large extent about high-skill plays and teamfights, although hero positioning and out of fight decision-making is also very important. If Starcraft 2 had higher skillcaps on units, it would have a spectator appeal approaching Dota's in engagements while retaining the characteristics people like in rts games. Dammit, misusage of word skill cap starts to annoy me. If there is a skillcap on a single unit, make 3 and attack in 3 different places. Bang, you suddenly increased skill cap. Not to mention, that Dota's engagements most of time are just either fakes either bunch of explosions with something dying. The problem with that logic is attacking in different locations often isn't a good idea, because units are typically stronger in clumps than alone. I don't know what you mean about Dota engagements...
1. 3 pronged banshee harass by Maru does not agree. And yes, small groups work too, as long as you do it as calculated risk and not go full base race with no army.
2. Nvm.
|
The only change I like is the turret tracking, the rest would make the game look weird, especially with unit shooting behind themselves.
|
On November 02 2013 03:22 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 03:10 playnice wrote:On November 02 2013 02:33 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2013 02:28 Spawkuring wrote:On November 02 2013 02:02 lolfail9001 wrote:
On a second thought, (not talking about that default stack behavior, after all what do you think separation radius variable was responsible for after all), kiting is actually like... easier now. Yes, this does not raise skill cap (it is infinite after all) in the slighest, it just makes game easier. That's funny, like really funny. On another thought, if Blizzard ever reacts to this video (i just pray they will not try to watch full video), they will just make attack command being more prioritized over separation, while keeping separation having higher priority over move and other comannds. Now that actually makes a BW-style muta micro possible, while keeping magic box and what not as it is. I don't agree that kiting is easier. Rather I'd argue that proper kiting is possible. The thing about how SC2 designed right now is that very few units, outside of terran infantry, can truly kite their enemy. The tank vs. zealot portion in the video is a great example of that. Siege tanks can kite the zealots, but only to an extent since their turrets constantly reset. No matter how skilled the player, the zealots will get enough free hits in that the tanks will always lose the battle. That's a stark difference from the tweaked example, where the modified tanks can actually beat the zealots if kited enough. This is what people mean when they say SC2 is less skill based. If you don't have the proper numbers, unit comp, or pre-battle positioning, you will lose no matter how skilled you are. The "in-battle" micro is de-emphasized, so it creates a meta-game where timing pushes, all-ins, and build orders often decide more games than they should. It's still a skill intensive game, but it's also an arguable one that's less entertaining to watch. I was only talking about air units here ofc, forgot to mention. Turrent thing just triggers my common sense to support it (yet, as someone pointed out, it is just a straight up buff, not much else). What i mean is that air unit kiting now ignores deceleration factor, and thus is easier to be performed close to perfect. P. S. Why the hell vikings move like if they were mutas. The problem with in-battle micro being de-emphasized has a whole bunch of reasons, and those ideas in their current form won't help that most likely. Calling the turret thing just a straight up buff is really oversimplifying it. It's about adding extra dimensions to what already exist in the game. A moving unit is now capable of avoiding damage while dealing it. No straight up change in numerical parameters eg fire rate, damage can achieve this without making the unit better overall. I'm not sure what kind of reasons you are alluding to for in-battle micro being de-emphasized. The turret behavior in SC2 to me feels like an oversight during the development of the game engine than an intentional design. 1. It is a change in numerical parameter essentially: it just reduces delay between the stop to attack and the attack itself to a borderline non-existent value. But yes, it is deeper, as currently that delay depends on angle between target and tank. And yet again, i do not argue against it, that's a thing that i cannot argue against as, in case of tanks, it is just a ****** common sense. 2. I was answering to the quote, sorry if that was kinda confusing. What i mean that as of now, battles do happen insanely fast (and tbh as long as pre-battle period is awesome, i am fine, sadly in TvP it is not T_T most of time at least, sometimes SummerTaeJa plays), so there is basically no time to micro most of time. Unless you actually force a smaller battles all game long ofc (reference: Maru vs Dear).
Of course it is still only numbers when we break it down to functioning logic and codes. I just want to point out the nuances to avoid other readers taking it out of context and reinforced that the aim here is to make certain units straight up better.
I would argue that the Viking change or turret change that affects Colossus and Immortals can potentially shift TvP away from the problems of a battle being over too quickly. In late game engagements every unit just stand their ground to try to get the most out of their damage to get the best trade. Eg: stormed Viking doesn't move out of storm coverage because it will lose a lot of it's damage output. Colosus doesn't move away from Viking range to deal with the Bio ball. The result is everything dies quickly and whichever side that has leftovers wins. My point is, the damage on both side is insanely fast and on top of that, micro is detrimental without moving shot, so units dished out the most damage possible and then perished.
|
On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players.
If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos.
You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy.
I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining.
|
please god, I hope blizz can take this shit to heart and not be so bloody prestigious... It sucks.
Love your work LaLush, awesome as always (actually even better this time, with less bitterness to it  )
|
On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining.
This thread is literally going in circles. Every few pages another guy comes along that says the exact same shit. Then people spend all their energy and effort refuting him. Like your argument about "skill ceiling isnt even reached in sc2, you can still do amazing things, go look at the bots" and the other one about "people only complaining cause they miss BW" There is like 10 others just like you that have brought up those exact same points and it was explained to them why that is not the case. Now some poor guy is going to have to waste his time on explaining it to you again, instead of just having you read the thread.
|
On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining.
Look, if you're going to be comparing micro with what that 2-3 year old video showed, you don't really understand what people here really want. From what I understand, and at least from my PoV, adding more micro to something is never bad because it adds more options for the better (read: mechanically better) player to come back and win in places they should not. We are looking at marine splits and honestly, they're probably not going to get that much better. Watch any top level pro Terran and their splits and it's pretty much as good as you're going to get. But what else is there? The problem here is that so many people are on polar sides. You either want changes, badly - or you think that anything that resembles BW is bad so therefore SC2 is perfect the way it is. Realistically, we've already seen what happens when the scene stagnates, and it can stagnate so easily because of BAD DESIGN and POOR SKILL SCALING.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining.
You have to think of it in terms of 'worthwhile micro' rather than simply best practice micro in ideal circumstances. Using bot automation as an example is incredibly unhelpful. We are not machines and cannot operate like machines. Just because there is that little bit of extra micro that a progamer could do, does not make it worthwhile to do. If you compare to bot AI, then it is true, there is always something more to learn and the so-called ceiling will never be hit. But does the game actually create incentives to make the micro worthwhile? That is something else completely.
There aren't more MKPs and MVPs not because progamers need to turn into machines to pull off something crazy. Rather, there are some tools in SC2 to distinguish themselves: incredibly microable marines. But the game would benefit from some more tools. The OP has some examples of where we could add more tools for players to use create new tactics to enhance their strategies.
To come at it from the opposite angle, SupCom2 has very nearly zero methods to create people like MKP and MVP. It has even less execution requirements so using this line of reasoning, players should play even closer to bot AI and everyone in SupCom2 ought to be a MKP and MVP. The opposite is true. SupCom2 has even less ways to distinguish themselves as players than SC2. They have less tools, so then it is all about tech choices and composition.
SC2 has very good tools. It would be nice to have better tools or more of them.
On November 02 2013 04:44 ChoiSulli wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining.
Now some poor guy is going to have to waste his time on explaining it to you again, instead of just having you read the thread.
I am that guy.
|
This thread, as well as Broodwar and Starcraft 2 - Pathing, appears to be very helpful for understanding what features are missing from SC2 and why it isn't that much fun. I get the impression they cover two of three major features of SC1 that are missing from SC2- Unit management/micro both when travelling and holding a position, how the glitchy pathing of SC1 served to actually enrich map design/battles/meta/visual spectator appeal, and the third feature seems to be how worker saturation in SC1 was more flexible in the sense that having more bases mining with less workers provided greater income and could be used strategically and also that oversaturated bases provided more income than they do in SC2 and how that can make for more interesting games. I was wondering is there is an article that talks more about the worker saturation issue with the clarity that these two threads provide to the pathing and micro issues. (?)
|
im sure someone else had said this, the micro in BW was skillful and thats what we want yes! but as a viewable esport all that instajerking around isnt good to watch, it makes the game look less organic and dated. We expect fluid realistic weight in our units. It could be worth releasing a test map with all these points left in and cast a few games. im always going to guarantee a major balance issue instantly and the game may as well be called kitecraft2. Personally im in the middle with this, yes i want games to come down to spectacular unit control and making every last unit count but on the other side i want the game to look like nature as well
|
On November 02 2013 00:34 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 00:00 Logo wrote:On November 01 2013 23:49 Falling wrote:
Wow. This has gone downhill in the last few pages. This sort of micro gives players more tools and gives units greater functionality. Why are we against units that respond better and are more maneuverable. Why should players "fight against the computer."
Why this is good for an RTS is because the most successful RTS's as competitive games and as spectator sports were ones that married Strategy and Tactics from RTS's and twitch response unit control from Fighting Games. Probably not intentionally, but that's the best description I can give. Day9's so-called frisbee analogy comes exactly into play here.
It's not just a click fest and he that has the higher apm spam wins. It is creating these little unit combo moves that allows players to gain advantages beyond simply positioning and unit composition. In addition to. Not in place of. That's why it creates more depth the gameplay. You take the fundamentals of a strategy game with unit positioning, composition decisions, tech choices and add in rapid response unit maneuvers.
Yes some of that already exists. My fallback example is Marines vs Banelings. We like that stuff. This adds more. Or enhances what already exists. It makes the micro smoother, more snappy, more crisp. Rather than making it feel like you are microing through mud. You can do it, but without the crisp, clean feel it doesn't feel nearly as fun to perform. You always feel like you are waiting for the computer to do its thing before performing the next action. Like playing in a high latency environment. Doable, but not as fun.
Marines vs Banelings is visual, it requires skill, and it is about rapid response and both players microing back and forth. Why would we sniff our noses at getting rid of engine limitations that choke unit functionality, that grinds unit movement to a halt and forces them to pause before firing. Maybe some units should keep that pause. But should all? Just because it's status quo and it might shake up the game. Delving down to these fundamentals and making smart changes can only be a good thing for the game for competitors and spectators alike.
(Oh and by the way, most of these maneuvers can be performed by low level players. I'm only 1700 D on iccup now, but the vast majority of the micro tricks I can do and could do when I was hovering between D/D-. Just not consistently and while macroing. It's fun for low level player as well as high level players. Even my brother (LordBryon of my BW is for Newbs blogs) has started trying Vulture patrol micro. It looks cool even for new players and they want to try it out.) Micro also changes the incentives and makes things worthwhile that otherwise might not be unless they were made too strong. Taking a pack of wraiths and flying them over the enemy mineral line repeatedly even while being chased by mutas and hydras is worth it because those wraiths can move shot to pick off scvs while flying. Because of that the incentive to try and do that is increased and that tactical gameplay has a ton of interesting decisions around positioning and control to keep those units alive (or on the otherside to hunt them down) we get better gameplay. I 100% agree. Incentive to micro is HUGE. That's why I don't buy the argument that players have not yet and will never reach the current skill ceiling so we need not add anything new. Skill ceilings will never be reached in that sense because we are not computer AI and do no play like robots. Even though there might be this 'best practice' which requires micro, progamers will not generally do it if the incentive to do so is not sufficient. To unabashadly self-promote, the example I used A-move by Design I argued that at some point in the game, every unit (except pure spellcasters), best practice can be to just A-move in win. Yes you could micro like crazy, but you have such an overwhelming advantage, normally microed units are just sent in to receive more damage, but to just roll them. Sometimes you just go and kill them. The example I used was if Seige Tanks had their splash damage removed. It might be that 'best practice' would still be to set them up for that extra armour damage. However, progamers aren't there to be fancy, but to win. So for them, best practice is a less than ideal micro, slightly higher damage taken, but we'd rarely see them seiged up. No matter how often we harangue them for not playing perfectly and therefore there is still something to improve. The incentive is not there. And if progamers don't do it, beginners certainly won't. But you would probably get some middling players with a hardcore following preaching the merits of that extra micro on TL. Meanwhile, progamers would continue roll their tanks around, never touching siege mode. The incentive needs to be sufficiently high for it to be a worthwhile investment for players to perform it. Even if there is a slight edge. Maybe one or two of the very top players would use it in specific situations. But the goal is to open it up for all. Incentivize the progamers and the lower players will follow suit because it looks so cool.
Yes. I am not convinced by all of LaLush's suggestions. But, I do believe they are worth exploring and testing in a beta environment. A decision regarding implementation of design changes leading to some or all of these changes can then be made by DB and his team based on their feasibility and their effect on SC2. They do look like they may well add to the game, though.
I agree that the SC2 skill ceiling is far from being reached. The game is getting better all the time. But, the addition of features that allow for these types of micro widens the skill ceiling. Rather like adding extra rooms to an existing house.
|
On November 02 2013 04:36 playnice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 03:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2013 03:10 playnice wrote:On November 02 2013 02:33 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2013 02:28 Spawkuring wrote:On November 02 2013 02:02 lolfail9001 wrote:
On a second thought, (not talking about that default stack behavior, after all what do you think separation radius variable was responsible for after all), kiting is actually like... easier now. Yes, this does not raise skill cap (it is infinite after all) in the slighest, it just makes game easier. That's funny, like really funny. On another thought, if Blizzard ever reacts to this video (i just pray they will not try to watch full video), they will just make attack command being more prioritized over separation, while keeping separation having higher priority over move and other comannds. Now that actually makes a BW-style muta micro possible, while keeping magic box and what not as it is. I don't agree that kiting is easier. Rather I'd argue that proper kiting is possible. The thing about how SC2 designed right now is that very few units, outside of terran infantry, can truly kite their enemy. The tank vs. zealot portion in the video is a great example of that. Siege tanks can kite the zealots, but only to an extent since their turrets constantly reset. No matter how skilled the player, the zealots will get enough free hits in that the tanks will always lose the battle. That's a stark difference from the tweaked example, where the modified tanks can actually beat the zealots if kited enough. This is what people mean when they say SC2 is less skill based. If you don't have the proper numbers, unit comp, or pre-battle positioning, you will lose no matter how skilled you are. The "in-battle" micro is de-emphasized, so it creates a meta-game where timing pushes, all-ins, and build orders often decide more games than they should. It's still a skill intensive game, but it's also an arguable one that's less entertaining to watch. I was only talking about air units here ofc, forgot to mention. Turrent thing just triggers my common sense to support it (yet, as someone pointed out, it is just a straight up buff, not much else). What i mean is that air unit kiting now ignores deceleration factor, and thus is easier to be performed close to perfect. P. S. Why the hell vikings move like if they were mutas. The problem with in-battle micro being de-emphasized has a whole bunch of reasons, and those ideas in their current form won't help that most likely. Calling the turret thing just a straight up buff is really oversimplifying it. It's about adding extra dimensions to what already exist in the game. A moving unit is now capable of avoiding damage while dealing it. No straight up change in numerical parameters eg fire rate, damage can achieve this without making the unit better overall. I'm not sure what kind of reasons you are alluding to for in-battle micro being de-emphasized. The turret behavior in SC2 to me feels like an oversight during the development of the game engine than an intentional design. 1. It is a change in numerical parameter essentially: it just reduces delay between the stop to attack and the attack itself to a borderline non-existent value. But yes, it is deeper, as currently that delay depends on angle between target and tank. And yet again, i do not argue against it, that's a thing that i cannot argue against as, in case of tanks, it is just a ****** common sense. 2. I was answering to the quote, sorry if that was kinda confusing. What i mean that as of now, battles do happen insanely fast (and tbh as long as pre-battle period is awesome, i am fine, sadly in TvP it is not T_T most of time at least, sometimes SummerTaeJa plays), so there is basically no time to micro most of time. Unless you actually force a smaller battles all game long ofc (reference: Maru vs Dear). Of course it is still only numbers when we break it down to functioning logic and codes. I just want to point out the nuances to avoid other readers taking it out of context and reinforced that the aim here is to make certain units straight up better. I would argue that the Viking change or turret change that affects Colossus and Immortals can potentially shift TvP away from the problems of a battle being over too quickly. In late game engagements every unit just stand their ground to try to get the most out of their damage to get the best trade. Eg: stormed Viking doesn't move out of storm coverage because it will lose a lot of it's damage output. Colosus doesn't move away from Viking range to deal with the Bio ball. The result is everything dies quickly and whichever side that has leftovers wins. My point is, the damage on both side is insanely fast and on top of that, micro is detrimental without moving shot, so units dished out the most damage possible and then perished.
Oh it will definately shift the balance. To overpowered for toss. The viking changes will barely help them against colossi, you aren't limitted by a short firing delay. However since they become alot better in air to air, blizzard will have to nerf their range.
So now we got range nerfed vikings vs colossi that can kite without having to turn back. Immortal change won't have any significance. So yeah I think they should do it because it looks cool. But I don't think a small boost to the immortal kite ability means alot. It *might* affect PvZ a little bit.
Similar to tanks btw. As lolfail said, put it in, makes sense. But unsieged tanks generally aren't really a danger to anything. If they do become useful, just nerf them (while unsieged). And that comes from a mech player. Siege tanks are cool, but shouldn't generally be useful unsieged, only in specific situations.
|
On November 02 2013 05:26 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 04:36 playnice wrote:On November 02 2013 03:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2013 03:10 playnice wrote:On November 02 2013 02:33 lolfail9001 wrote:On November 02 2013 02:28 Spawkuring wrote:On November 02 2013 02:02 lolfail9001 wrote:
On a second thought, (not talking about that default stack behavior, after all what do you think separation radius variable was responsible for after all), kiting is actually like... easier now. Yes, this does not raise skill cap (it is infinite after all) in the slighest, it just makes game easier. That's funny, like really funny. On another thought, if Blizzard ever reacts to this video (i just pray they will not try to watch full video), they will just make attack command being more prioritized over separation, while keeping separation having higher priority over move and other comannds. Now that actually makes a BW-style muta micro possible, while keeping magic box and what not as it is. I don't agree that kiting is easier. Rather I'd argue that proper kiting is possible. The thing about how SC2 designed right now is that very few units, outside of terran infantry, can truly kite their enemy. The tank vs. zealot portion in the video is a great example of that. Siege tanks can kite the zealots, but only to an extent since their turrets constantly reset. No matter how skilled the player, the zealots will get enough free hits in that the tanks will always lose the battle. That's a stark difference from the tweaked example, where the modified tanks can actually beat the zealots if kited enough. This is what people mean when they say SC2 is less skill based. If you don't have the proper numbers, unit comp, or pre-battle positioning, you will lose no matter how skilled you are. The "in-battle" micro is de-emphasized, so it creates a meta-game where timing pushes, all-ins, and build orders often decide more games than they should. It's still a skill intensive game, but it's also an arguable one that's less entertaining to watch. I was only talking about air units here ofc, forgot to mention. Turrent thing just triggers my common sense to support it (yet, as someone pointed out, it is just a straight up buff, not much else). What i mean is that air unit kiting now ignores deceleration factor, and thus is easier to be performed close to perfect. P. S. Why the hell vikings move like if they were mutas. The problem with in-battle micro being de-emphasized has a whole bunch of reasons, and those ideas in their current form won't help that most likely. Calling the turret thing just a straight up buff is really oversimplifying it. It's about adding extra dimensions to what already exist in the game. A moving unit is now capable of avoiding damage while dealing it. No straight up change in numerical parameters eg fire rate, damage can achieve this without making the unit better overall. I'm not sure what kind of reasons you are alluding to for in-battle micro being de-emphasized. The turret behavior in SC2 to me feels like an oversight during the development of the game engine than an intentional design. 1. It is a change in numerical parameter essentially: it just reduces delay between the stop to attack and the attack itself to a borderline non-existent value. But yes, it is deeper, as currently that delay depends on angle between target and tank. And yet again, i do not argue against it, that's a thing that i cannot argue against as, in case of tanks, it is just a ****** common sense. 2. I was answering to the quote, sorry if that was kinda confusing. What i mean that as of now, battles do happen insanely fast (and tbh as long as pre-battle period is awesome, i am fine, sadly in TvP it is not T_T most of time at least, sometimes SummerTaeJa plays), so there is basically no time to micro most of time. Unless you actually force a smaller battles all game long ofc (reference: Maru vs Dear). Of course it is still only numbers when we break it down to functioning logic and codes. I just want to point out the nuances to avoid other readers taking it out of context and reinforced that the aim here is to make certain units straight up better. I would argue that the Viking change or turret change that affects Colossus and Immortals can potentially shift TvP away from the problems of a battle being over too quickly. In late game engagements every unit just stand their ground to try to get the most out of their damage to get the best trade. Eg: stormed Viking doesn't move out of storm coverage because it will lose a lot of it's damage output. Colosus doesn't move away from Viking range to deal with the Bio ball. The result is everything dies quickly and whichever side that has leftovers wins. My point is, the damage on both side is insanely fast and on top of that, micro is detrimental without moving shot, so units dished out the most damage possible and then perished. Oh it will definately shift the balance. To overpowered for toss. The viking changes will barely help them against colossi, you aren't limitted by a short firing delay. However since they become alot better in air to air, blizzard will have to nerf their range. So now we got range nerfed vikings vs colossi that can kite without having to turn back. Immortal change won't have any significance. So yeah I think they should do it because it looks cool. But I don't think a small boost to the immortal kite ability means alot. It *might* affect PvZ a little bit. Similar to tanks btw. As lolfail said, put it in, makes sense. But unsieged tanks generally aren't really a danger to anything. If they do become useful, just nerf them (while unsieged). And that comes from a mech player. Siege tanks are cool, but shouldn't generally be useful unsieged, only in specific situations.
Well, I don't think balance is something that should matter when looking at changes like this. At least not initially. Figure out if this creates more opportunities for the better player to win/show good games, and balance can be figured out later.
|
We need more of these topics what is "wrong" with sc2, thereby Blizzard finally understand that their sc2 community isn't satisfied with esports design. It's still alot worse than sc:bw and wc3 at esports level.
Without esports, sc2 is an excellent game. I am only talking game quality, not about stream-numbers, audience or tournaments.
|
On November 02 2013 04:44 ChoiSulli wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining. This thread is literally going in circles. Every few pages another guy comes along that says the exact same shit. Then people spend all their energy and effort refuting him. Like your argument about "skill ceiling isnt even reached in sc2, you can still do amazing things, go look at the bots" and the other one about "people only complaining cause they miss BW" There is like 10 others just like you that have brought up those exact same points and it was explained to them why that is not the case. Now some poor guy is going to have to waste his time on explaining it to you again, instead of just having you read the thread. FYI, somebody else sharing your opinion is not the same as that person "refuting" somebody else's opinion.
|
On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining.
In what conceivable universe will anyone ever be able to match Automaton 5000? It is an AI, a computer program that uses the full power of an electric brain that can react thousands if not millions of times faster than a human being can, even excluding the fact that it bypasses the clumsy mouse and keyboard interface to interact directly with the game.
This "micro" you speak of might as well not even exist. We only even know it is possible because someone designed a computer program for it and even then no human being will ever do it.
|
Very good topic. One thing I'd like to bring up here is the way non-clumping allows so much more micro potential on ground units. The battles are cleaner when less clumped, and you can drag select a few units much easier. You can also more accurately click on single units. Clicking on single units that are in motion with extreme clumping and big armies (SC2) is often impossible when they units are small.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On November 02 2013 06:14 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining. In what conceivable universe will anyone ever be able to match Automaton 5000? It is an AI, a computer program that uses the full power of an electric brain that can react thousands if not millions of times faster than a human being can, even excluding the fact that it bypasses the clumsy mouse and keyboard interface to interact directly with the game. This "micro" you speak of might as well not even exist. We only even know it is possible because someone designed a computer program for it and even then no human being will ever do it.
Innovation's splits are actually really similar to it. They do not control each marine separately though, so that is.
|
On November 02 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 06:14 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On November 02 2013 04:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On November 02 2013 01:16 fighter2_40 wrote:
Argument for why these changes are just good for SC2 even without Broodwar context:
To address this topic, we first have to examine why people watch sports ie. other people playing games, in the first place. The fans want the thrill of seeing somebody else do what they themselves cannot do. Now this does not necessarily mean the score screen. Fans do not get excited over team X beating team Y if they don't see the action that takes place.
In starcraft 2, there surely is a large skill gap between the professional players that we watch, and the fans sitting at home. However, I would say this inequality presents itself through the course of the game as a whole whether it be by better macro, decision making, or unit composition. Very rarely is it through a "move" or a skill shot.
Similarly in sports, the game becomes way more involved for the fans when their favorite player performs exceptional athletic movements that no ordinary human can do. Although it is satisfying for your team to win, it's only time and time again exciting if we see what the skill gap is, which in my opinion is best demonstrated through brief moments of micro.
I'm not saying SC2 doesn't have micro. It does. However, the micro tricks you can do in SC2 are too easy to execute. The fact that many diamond and masters players can do all the micro steps that the pros do within a custom map shows that it's not the micro itself that is a reflection of the skill gap, but the overall picture, which has more to do with things that we cannot see as viewers.
So in conclusion, although I believe Lalush's proposed changes will make the game more dynamic, we need to be sure that if they do enter the game (which I doubt given blizzards track record), that these new features of units can only be exploited given extreme dexterity and apm, which will highlight the gap between pro players and casuals or even lesser pro players. If it's so easy how come we don't see more MarineKings, MVPs, and all of the zerg and protoss players that have amazing micro? If you want proof of this watch the automation (I probably spelled it incorrectly but oh well) bot videos. You can still do amazing things in SC2 micro wise that not anyone has done yet that are a far cry from easy. I think that most that are complaining are still stuck on BW and it's out dated engine that requires you to click a bunch of times just to get a worker mining. In what conceivable universe will anyone ever be able to match Automaton 5000? It is an AI, a computer program that uses the full power of an electric brain that can react thousands if not millions of times faster than a human being can, even excluding the fact that it bypasses the clumsy mouse and keyboard interface to interact directly with the game. This "micro" you speak of might as well not even exist. We only even know it is possible because someone designed a computer program for it and even then no human being will ever do it. Innovation's splits are actually really similar to it. They do not control each marine separately though, so that is.
No they are not. The bot is infinitely better than innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
