|
On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope.
Quitter ^^
On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2?
The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time.
Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it."
David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone."
|
On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone."
Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests.
|
I believe DK means not the gliding itself, but the mechanics behind why you can do a moving shot aren't known by a casual player.
I still think it's total bullshitting.
|
On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests.
to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see.
I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see.
if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject.
|
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject.
That couldn't have hurt and it distract from the main point of buggy air units and turrets not being turrets. The majority of the run time is BW, rather then SC2.
|
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject.
And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad".
I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues.
So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject.
Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)?
No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it.
Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War.
It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more.
Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade...
And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!?
It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were.
Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined.
This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate.
|
On November 11 2013 22:35 LaLuSh wrote:
I don't understand why the arguments in this thread keep being centered around stacking and such.
You can have the exact same kind of separation as SC2 has right now and still have a functioning moving shot.
My main point is that units should not dead stop because of the arbitrariness of how the engine code was written. They don't have to remove separation. Units can separate in the exact same manner they do now while not dead stopping (if they just review their engine code). I'm 99% sure they did not put in a gliding/deceleration feature in the game in the first place to have it randomly interrupted by some other part of the code.
Same thing goes for the overkill prevention code. There's no reason that the units that don't fire due to overkill prevention shouldn't keep gliding. The fact that they dead stop is just random and arbitrary.
While changing all the other variables I pointed out might not be directly noticed by viewers. I'm rather sure they will indirectly notice the effects.
To put it bluntly, it's because the video is all over the place. You touch on so many things, but don't go into much detail on how you think they should be solved aside from on-screen text at the end. I would venture to guess that a lot of people watching don't understand that you can get the desired effect of separation not messing with moving shot micro, without removing separation entirely.
Also, the things you touch on range from clear bugs to design choices, so it's hard to say what you put emphasis on as important to change. Things, like the separation issue, the turret mechanics, and the overkill bug, I think are clearly bugs to be fixed and had they been presented as the emphasis, I think it's more likely that Blizzard would take notice and act.
|
8748 Posts
Having talked to some people at BlizzCon, I don't think now is the right time to make a push for these changes. I think we should wait for Legacy of the Void, which I now believe to be pretty far off, until we really get into the developers' faces.
David Kim gave an extremely unsatisfying response. For one, whenever pristine kiting micro makes the difference in a fight, the crowds DO recognize it and they DO cheer. For another, they can't make every battle situation involve some flashy ability, so in the absence of something cheer-inducing, there's no reason not to give the player incentive to micro more. That is, it wouldn't be a negative change -- possibly neutral, but most likely positive.
My read on the situation is that implementing a number of these changes would be a major project for them, a project for which they currently don't have the time and resources. And even once they decide all the specific changes they're going to make, the (im)balancing fallout will be immense. Entire strategies depend on the effectiveness and reliability of certain units and that will all get shaken up.
|
To be honest, I never understood how Blizzard can be so focused on the casual players and accept units that can decide the whole game within seconds if left unnoticed, which happens a lot to casual players. Like, isn't this the most frustrating thing ever? Losing a long game just because you did not pay attention for a couple of seconds.
|
I don't think Blizzard are stupid.
If I were to read DKims post as out of context as mine is read/viewed I'd read it as: "They won't give me the software engineers who wrote the engine code because they are tied to other projects and haven't worked on SC2 for years. I also wouldn't be able to get resources for the necessary QA for these changes. But personally I do think micro can be provided in different ways from these, so that's what I'm going to say."
Even the people arguing against the video in this thread aren't actually arguing that fixing dead stops or most of the other suggestions are bad. They're just focusing on pseudo shit like faults in the presentation and what that supposedly meant to how others would have perceived the video. Even if that is how they perceived it: they aren't stupid enough not to understand it. I (sincerely) hope.
|
I don't understand how people can be so neutral about something that makes the game possibly more fun to play even if it doesn't necessarily translate to the viewers. Are the people that actually play the game so meaningless?
|
On November 12 2013 02:30 NonY wrote:
Having talked to some people at BlizzCon, I don't think now is the right time to make a push for these changes. I think we should wait for Legacy of the Void, which I now believe to be pretty far off, until we really get into the developers' faces.
David Kim gave an extremely unsatisfying response. For one, whenever pristine kiting micro makes the difference in a fight, the crowds DO recognize it and they DO cheer. For another, they can't make every battle situation involve some flashy ability, so in the absence of something cheer-inducing, there's no reason not to give the player incentive to micro more. That is, it wouldn't be a negative change -- possibly neutral, but most likely positive.
My read on the situation is that implementing a number of these changes would be a major project for them, a project for which they currently don't have the time and resources. And even once they decide all the specific changes they're going to make, the (im)balancing fallout will be immense. Entire strategies depend on the effectiveness and reliability of certain units and that will all get shaken up.
Yeah I don't see how Blizzard thinks making units more microable would make them lose their casual audience. If units are able to be controlled so they last last longer, won't that just make casuals think how awesome the units are? And how many people who are absolute casuals (like people who don't know what's going on) actually watch the game enough to have a meaningful impact on the viewership numbers? If they modify the physics of the game, I doubt a casual would be able to tell the difference or care enough to quit the game.
|
I'll quote my post here from the other thread:
Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:36 aZealot wrote:On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way. If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments. I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept. Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting...
I'm extremely disappointed by some of the responses in this thread. You don't have to agree with LaLush's suggestions, there are many reasons why they might either not be feasible or may not be suited to the game. But what turns you into a dishonest troll is discrediting LaLush by pretending that some pro-brood war subtext in his video makes all his points invalid. And please stop lamenting how this video might not reach Blizzard's ears because they are somehow highly sensitive and will be put off by mentions of brood war, when you are against the suggestions to begin with. It's so dishonest, all this fake concern about things you don't even care about. People here are intelligent enough to debate the post on its merits, but they chose not to and instead come up with these stupid derailing tactics. *meh*
|
On November 12 2013 03:34 Grumbels wrote:I'll quote my post here from the other thread: Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:36 aZealot wrote:On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way. If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments. I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept. Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting... I'm extremely disappointed by some of the responses in this thread. You don't have to agree with LaLush's suggestions, there are many reasons why they might either not be feasible or may not be suited to the game. But what turns you into a dishonest troll is discrediting LaLush by pretending that some pro-brood war subtext in his video makes all his points invalid. And please stop lamenting how this video might not reach Blizzard's ears because they are somehow highly sensitive and will be put off by mentions of brood war, when you are against the suggestions to begin with. It's so dishonest, all this fake concern about things you don't even care about. People here are intelligent enough to debate the post on its merits, but they chose not to and instead come up with these stupid derailing tactics. *meh*
Much like blizzard, the video and op are open to criticism and a few posters have pointed out that the video lacks focus and is very heavy with the BW gameplay. People agree with the thrust of the video and tha micro is good, but the presentation isn't as focused at Nonys carrier video. Nony also pointed out that Blizzard may not be focusing on big changes right now with all the stuff they have going on( Heroes, D3 expansion, hearthstone).
|
Northern Ireland25663 Posts
Things that in my experience actually frustrate the casual players that I personally know-
All-ins, especially involving warpgate rushes
The feeling that at lower levels especially, Terran is far more taxing than Protoss in that matchup
Deathballs and/or engagements where armies get wiped, sometimes when you aren't watching.
Bnet 2.0 as a social experience.
This is not exactly representative of people except those I know personally, nor do I claim it's exhaustive.
It just irks me that casuals are frequently spoken for (and get flak by proxy) as a justification for not doing things. People sneering 'godamn casuals' and Blizz deflect at least some of the heat.
I don't see casuals not getting what is visually interesting or impressive, their concerns are often the exact same as even the hardcore playerbase
|
All i read from the response on David Kim was "We want the game to be casual".
Well, if you want the game to be casual and FUN you should remove all the existing allins that exist. It's to easy and effective to do allins. THIS is why people quit, because there's no point in actually learning the game when people just all-in.
There's a different between easy and casual. Let's see when blizzard figures it out.
|
I think 99% of the people in this thread agree that the tracking turrets, if not the rest, are blatantly bad in sc2 in its current form and that this at least should be adressed? Perhaps David Kim can give some sort of response as to why tanks, hellions and immortals (to a less extent than tanks) dont behave intuitively at all given that he wants it to be casual-friendly.
If anything a tank that behaves more like a real life tank is surely what casuals want and can understand?
|
Canada16217 Posts
On November 12 2013 05:50 A.Alm wrote:
All i read from the response on David Kim was "We want the game to be casual".
Well, if you want the game to be casual and FUN you should remove all the existing allins that exist. It's to easy and effective to do allins. THIS is why people quit, because there's no point in actually learning the game when people just all-in.
There's a different between easy and casual. Let's see when blizzard figures it out.
removing all-ins would mean re-structuring the whole game, besides I think all-ins are good for the game especially at the pro level.
|
Hello TL. I haven't played SC2 in probably 18 months and I don't even own HOTS, but I watch pro games sometimes. Even when I played SC2, I was pretty horrible at it. I saw this video linked somewhere, probably reddit, and thought I would comment.
Blizzard purposefully designed the game so that people who didn't really know much about the game would be able to watch it anyways. To further this goal, SC2 has an informal "What You See Is What You Get"(WYSIWYG) rule. By WYSIWYG, I mean that you should be able to easily see relative strengths and understand successful outcomes even if you don't know much about the game.
With this perspective, it's very easy to understand why David Kim said the things he did.
WYSIWYG isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it has been implemented in such a way that it is bad for SC2.
I think the pursuit of WYSIWYG has created a situation where better play can't mitigate good play in key areas.
One issue is that unit micro is effectively gone because the units and spells always act consistently in a way that can't be mitigated. You can't significantly impact the performance of charge zealots by manually controlling them and you can't effectively mitigate damage from charge zealots by trying to maneuver your units. X hellbats will always beat Y zealots but lose to Y+1 zealots. ect.
Some units, like the hellion, were purposefully given high attack wait time values(damage point) so that the benefit gained by controlling them well would be small. This is ridiculous and it makes using them feel like crap.
Area denial units, outside of widow mines(let's be honest, they are basically seeker missiles with stealth), are not effective deterrent because the bigger/stronger army will completely stomp them. My guess is that the widow mines will be nerfed until they work about as well as the other area denial units.(IE they become combat support units with occasional sneakiness)
This also applies to spells. You can't mitigate fungal growth/Abduct/force field/psionic storm/emp/ect after they have been cast. These abilities become hit-or-miss. A good storm/fungal is one that hits a lot of units. A bad storm/fungal is one that doesn't hit enough units. Opponent interaction and reaction completely disappears.
Probably the most visible aspect of the WYSIWYG system is that it has created a system of hard counters. In order for low information viewers to understand what is going on, you have to have easy to understand unit profiles with well defined roles. You can't have situations where a unit is defeated by a unit that it was supposed to counter. For instance, in WYSIWYG you don't want Thors to ever be able to take out Immortals. You also don't want Hellbats to lose to zealots at any scale. ect.
This is a problem because these things lead to all of the most common complaints people have with SC2.
Death balls are inevitable because the weaker groups usually can't deal significant damage to stronger groups. Death balls mean that games are usually determined by the outcome of a single battle. Since you can just see which army is strongest, it's usually obvious who the winner of the battle is going to be.(stronger looking army = win, bad arc = lose, ect)
Matches with similar unit compositions play out exactly the same because units act the same way in every situation, even when players with drastically different skill levels use them.
Unit compositions for a match up do not change much because the strong counter system usually boils things down to a handful of simple unit combinations. It doesn't help that historically, Blizzard has nerfed units in ways that have removed them entirely from match ups.
As a result, the single most important thing in SC2 is economic strategy instead of controlling units well. Personally, I find the economic aspects of the game to be the least interesting to watch/play. It's not fun or interesting to watch people use mules or spawn larva, yet stuff like this is the most important part of the game.
Every single game in the WCS Season 3 Grand Finals had both players expand by around the first two minutes and end the game by ~12 minutes. They usually ended after a little bit of harassment and one actual battle that determined who won. In at least one game, the Zerg player had 3 bases set up before there was any harassment. The Protoss player attacked with 1 stalker and 1 zealot and then built his third base. It's kind of ridiculous.
I'm not saying that SC2 isn't balanced or that it's a bad game, but it could be better if there was more focus on unit control. It could be as simple as giving certain air and ground units better/different tools for skirting their maximum range/firing while pursuing or fleeing/ ect while eliminating some of the more tedious economic stuff.(Preferably not the goofy way the Phoenix works)
Unfortunately, it's unlikely for Blizzard to change SC2 at this point. It would take a lot of effort to stop these problems and Blizzard is probably more worried about making the game more accessible than ever.
|
Russian Federation7 Posts
On October 31 2013 09:15 xsnac wrote:
this is gold . hope blizzard will do it .
Totally Agree!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
