• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:58
CEST 10:58
KST 17:58
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL50Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?12FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports?
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL Help: rep cant save Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 674 users

Depth of Micro - Page 51

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 49 50 51 52 53 61 Next
dreamseller
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
Australia914 Posts
November 12 2013 03:32 GMT
#1001
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.




The point remains that comparing sc2 to bw is clearly a sore spot for the decision makers at blizzard, and keeping this in mind when calling for change might be a more effective way to enable positive changes to sc2. The presentation could have been made without brood war at all and perhaps been more effective.

That said, the response from dk is pathetic. Avilo summed it up well on his stream yesterday with a bunch of pro sports analogies; "the nfl spectator doesn't have to understand the throwing arm physics behind a perfect qback throw to be amazed at the result", and the technical details behind a 150mph tennis serve etc.
PGtour admin
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12384 Posts
November 12 2013 04:36 GMT
#1002
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.


5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2.

And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is.
Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2.
esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason?
All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct?
Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc.

why Nony video was better for blizzard to see.
It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.)
they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit.
BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier

In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz.
("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.")

so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it?
"These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)."
Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope.
We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc

If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no?
Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no?
Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem?

If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say.
Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product?
A business proposal should be concise and focused.
You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important.
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
shindigs
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States4795 Posts
November 12 2013 04:53 GMT
#1003
Finally watched the video. Enjoyed it immensely until the end, which I would have to agree the presentation became an issue. Overall I'd like to think Blizz devs can overlook it and see the awesome highlights you presented.

Still, comparing one clip where there are hype Korean commentators cheering for great drone micro, compared to a probe chasing a drone in a unit tester with no commentary and inferring that that is substantially more boring in two completely contexts was in poor taste in what was a really good video. Furthermore, saying that SC2 is not "consistent, responsive, etc" is too broad of a criticism. It's like saying "SC2 is not fun, enjoyable, and appealing" and those words mean too many different things to different people.

Still, I was really impressed of what you highlighted and I hope that final presentation doesn't turn off any chance of developers taking this video seriously. I agree with Nony that it seems that Heroes is a bit of a priority right now if some of these changes require a change in the engine.

I agree with the point that the viewers can appreciate subtle micro, no idea why David Kim would say that.
Photographer@shindags || twitch.tv/shindigs
aZealot
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
New Zealand5447 Posts
November 12 2013 05:06 GMT
#1004
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.


Dk's response was odd (and possibly evasive) but I still don't know what aspect of the video he was responding to. After all, the question was (iirc), "What are your thoughts on the Depth of Micro article on TL?". Moreover, I don't believe his response indicated that there would be no additions to micro-ability in SC2 (indeed his previous presentation seemed to suggest otherwise). Rather, that they might not be of the kind showcased in the video. If so, I see nothing wrong with that. The real test will be when these micro enhancements are made, the use of these by the player base, and their effect on SC2 gameplay.


KT best KT ~ 2014
WombaT
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Northern Ireland25029 Posts
November 12 2013 05:21 GMT
#1005
I think consistent is a good choice of words really. Hell of a lot better than the words like 'dynamic' and 'exciting' which often come with balance patches :p

More so for the clear differences in how units behave when grouped up. The Banshees and especially the Oracles glitch out quite a bit when their numbers rise.
'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - Squat
dreamseller
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
Australia914 Posts
November 12 2013 06:24 GMT
#1006
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.


this is a top comment and entirely relevant. the balance implication and the resources to clean up the results of enhancing the game in this way is no small thing. most of the changes the community here want are not small
PGtour admin
jinorazi
Profile Joined October 2004
Korea (South)4948 Posts
November 12 2013 07:06 GMT
#1007
i disagree with dk's comment on casuals understanding whats going on. its so common in so many sports and esports alike, there shouldnt be efforts of trying to identify all of them, it ruins it (spells). high level mechanics should be extremely difficult and impossible without learning and practicing. much like knuckleballs in soccer and baseball, golf swings, shooting mechanics in basketball. casuals can do their hardest but knowing what to do and practicing it is what makes it work. labeling everything just makes it more stupid. (not that they intentionally did that with spells but seems to be a side effect of it)
age: 84 | location: california | sex: 잘함
L3monsta
Profile Joined May 2012
New Zealand149 Posts
November 12 2013 07:08 GMT
#1008
On November 12 2013 16:06 jinorazi wrote:
i disagree with dk's comment on casuals understanding whats going on. its so common in so many sports and esports alike, there shouldnt be efforts of trying to identify all of them, it ruins it (spells). high level mechanics should be extremely difficult and impossible without learning and practicing. much like knuckleballs in soccer and baseball, golf swings, shooting mechanics in basketball. casuals can do their hardest but knowing what to do and practicing it is what makes it work. labeling everything just makes it more stupid. (not that they intentionally did that with spells but seems to be a side effect of it)

To be perfectly honest, I showed a friend a sc2 video yesterday... Did they have any idea what was going on? No. Did they enjoy it? Yes.
r.Evo
Profile Joined August 2006
Germany14080 Posts
November 12 2013 07:23 GMT
#1009
I think I love you.

That video explained so much I couldn't really put into words when trying to figure out why exactly I never enjoyed SC2 as much as I did BW. :3
"We don't make mistakes here, we call it happy little accidents." ~Bob Ross
Quixotic_tv
Profile Blog Joined August 2012
Germany130 Posts
November 12 2013 07:36 GMT
#1010
I think CatZ gave the right, proper response to avilo. On twitter.

I would use a more friendly wording, ok. Nevertheless, thanks to CatZ.
Life always finds a way.
NukeD
Profile Joined October 2010
Croatia1612 Posts
November 12 2013 07:48 GMT
#1011
On November 12 2013 15:24 dreamseller wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


this is a top comment and entirely relevant. the balance implication and the resources to clean up the results of enhancing the game in this way is no small thing. most of the changes the community here want are not small

Its not a top comment, its just common sense.
sorry for dem one liners
saddaromma
Profile Joined April 2013
1129 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-11-12 08:33:48
November 12 2013 08:32 GMT
#1012
On November 12 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.


5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2.

And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is.
Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2.
esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason?
All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct?
Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc.

why Nony video was better for blizzard to see.
It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.)
they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit.
BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier

In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz.
("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.")

so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it?
"These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)."
Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope.
We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc

If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no?
Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no?
Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem?

If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say.
Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product?
A business proposal should be concise and focused.
You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important.

Then why don't you do a proper video yourself?
LaLush's video was absolutely fine, SC2 really lacks some stuff the game could be improved upon. Using BW montages, shitting on game or exaggerating are all matter of style. In the end he delivers the POINT, which is most important. If you think it could be done in better way then go ahead do it, its better than pointless critisizm of the presentation rather than arguing the matter itself.
ETisME
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
12384 Posts
November 12 2013 09:06 GMT
#1013
On November 12 2013 17:32 saddaromma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.


5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2.

And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is.
Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2.
esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason?
All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct?
Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc.

why Nony video was better for blizzard to see.
It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.)
they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit.
BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier

In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz.
("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.")

so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it?
"These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)."
Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope.
We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc

If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no?
Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no?
Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem?

If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say.
Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product?
A business proposal should be concise and focused.
You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important.

Then why don't you do a proper video yourself?
LaLush's video was absolutely fine, SC2 really lacks some stuff the game could be improved upon. Using BW montages, shitting on game or exaggerating are all matter of style. In the end he delivers the POINT, which is most important. If you think it could be done in better way then go ahead do it, its better than pointless critisizm of the presentation rather than arguing the matter itself.

Whether the POINT was delivered or not, we don't know.
blizzard feedback DID NOT address any of the POINT shown in the video and seemingly only have watched the BW patrol micro part which is NOT THE POINT of this video but took up 1/4th of the actual content?

Nothing on turret tracking, overkill, separation radius etc which are not invisible micro. Do you still think the point was delivered?

It doesn't matter if you think the POINT was correct or not, it's not even about if you think the video is fine or not.
if the matter of style is getting in the way of presenting the POINT, then obviously it isn't a good video to deliver his POINT, is it?
It's about did Blizzard watch the whole video without those BW presentation getting in their way of thinking.

as for why don't I do a proper video, this is a silly argument.
can you do better than twitchtv? then do you have to accept as it is with all the lags?
其疾如风,其徐如林,侵掠如火,不动如山,难知如阴,动如雷震。
BakedButters
Profile Joined November 2011
United States748 Posts
November 12 2013 09:11 GMT
#1014
If DK doesn't want to have hidden mechanics micro that the casual players might not understand, then why not simply reduce the damage output of SC2?

This will make a more micro-intensive game that everyone will enjoy and appreciate. Micro highlights are always popular, and this one of the reasons why LoL and Dota is popular.

There will be constant action right from the beginning, since controlling every individual unit is more important, from first stalker to pair of lings, or group of marines. Harassing, defending harass, multitasking is more important since both sides can win more decidedly by micro.

Units that hard-counter other units will be a little less effective since micro can still let u escape/ live longer for other units to join the fight, so it gives this back-and-forth micro battles.

Battles of death-balls won't end so quickly with you watching wtf just happened. Overall deathballs will have less importance, because it's not so important for you to have all your units together in a fight to do high damage.

Currently the game is too fast. It's so common for pros to not look for 1 second and lose entire army, and so basically game over.

Comebacks are more possible as a player can be able to win even if having a lower supply but having amazing micro. Back-and-forth comebacks makes the game more exciting.

Since dmg output is so high, micro of big battles is mainly of spreading units and concaves, then mostly A-move. If dmg output is reduced, micro is more unit intensive and constant throughout. No more A-move.

Basically the skill-ceiling will be much much higher. And the casual players will appreciate pros able to micro that so good and make more amazing plays

I come from a WC3 background so I'm very biased towards micro
Snute <3 Bomber <3 Parting <3 Life <3
JustPassingBy
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
10776 Posts
November 12 2013 09:32 GMT
#1015
On November 12 2013 12:32 dreamseller wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.




The point remains that comparing sc2 to bw is clearly a sore spot for the decision makers at blizzard, and keeping this in mind when calling for change might be a more effective way to enable positive changes to sc2. The presentation could have been made without brood war at all and perhaps been more effective.

That said, the response from dk is pathetic. Avilo summed it up well on his stream yesterday with a bunch of pro sports analogies; "the nfl spectator doesn't have to understand the throwing arm physics behind a perfect qback throw to be amazed at the result", and the technical details behind a 150mph tennis serve etc.


Funny enough, you'd think that the designers of a game in which one huge aspect is coping with your losses and emerging stronger from them would be better at dealing with harsh criticism.
SsDrKosS
Profile Joined March 2013
330 Posts
November 12 2013 10:06 GMT
#1016
blizzard! plz hire this guy :'(
I think this is the biggest mistake that sc2 dev team made.
no wonder every battle was 5 secs blink of eyes...
Xiphias
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Norway2223 Posts
November 12 2013 10:39 GMT
#1017
The turret tracking could definitely get implemented without much effort and radical change. I am thinking about tanks, immortals and hellions.

It is kinda ironic. I feels that with this thread and threads about BW pathing etc. that SC2 has taught as a lot more about BW than BW did.
aka KanBan85. Working on Starbow.
TaShadan
Profile Joined February 2010
Germany1967 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-11-12 10:54:36
November 12 2013 10:53 GMT
#1018
On November 12 2013 19:39 Xiphias wrote:
The turret tracking could definitely get implemented without much effort and radical change. I am thinking about tanks, immortals and hellions.

It is kinda ironic. I feels that with this thread and threads about BW pathing etc. that SC2 has taught as a lot more about BW than BW did.


In science you often have to knock out genes to analyse them. In most cases you can only see a difference or an effect after the gene is not there anymore. So i guess its much easier to notice stuff in SC2 that we had in BW but isnt there anymore.
Total Annihilation Zero
dreamseller
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
Australia914 Posts
November 12 2013 10:58 GMT
#1019
On November 12 2013 18:32 JustPassingBy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 12:32 dreamseller wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.




The point remains that comparing sc2 to bw is clearly a sore spot for the decision makers at blizzard, and keeping this in mind when calling for change might be a more effective way to enable positive changes to sc2. The presentation could have been made without brood war at all and perhaps been more effective.

That said, the response from dk is pathetic. Avilo summed it up well on his stream yesterday with a bunch of pro sports analogies; "the nfl spectator doesn't have to understand the throwing arm physics behind a perfect qback throw to be amazed at the result", and the technical details behind a 150mph tennis serve etc.


Funny enough, you'd think that the designers of a game in which one huge aspect is coping with your losses and emerging stronger from them would be better at dealing with harsh criticism.


an interesting link you've made between the competitive aspect of 1vs1 RTS and business structures; it's well known that most of "the magic" in terms of the design team (diablo1/2 team, wc1/2/3 team, sc/bw team) has moved on from blizzard and it seems the new team doesn't want their decisions in the future informed by the glorious past.
PGtour admin
Xiphos
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Canada7507 Posts
November 12 2013 15:35 GMT
#1020
On November 12 2013 18:06 ETisME wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 17:32 saddaromma wrote:
On November 12 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:
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.


5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2.

And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is.
Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2.
esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason?
All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct?
Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc.

why Nony video was better for blizzard to see.
It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.)
they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit.
BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier

In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz.
("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.")

so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it?
"These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)."
Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope.
We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc

If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no?
Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no?
Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem?

If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say.
Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product?
A business proposal should be concise and focused.
You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important.

Then why don't you do a proper video yourself?
LaLush's video was absolutely fine, SC2 really lacks some stuff the game could be improved upon. Using BW montages, shitting on game or exaggerating are all matter of style. In the end he delivers the POINT, which is most important. If you think it could be done in better way then go ahead do it, its better than pointless critisizm of the presentation rather than arguing the matter itself.

Whether the POINT was delivered or not, we don't know.
blizzard feedback DID NOT address any of the POINT shown in the video and seemingly only have watched the BW patrol micro part which is NOT THE POINT of this video but took up 1/4th of the actual content?

Nothing on turret tracking, overkill, separation radius etc which are not invisible micro. Do you still think the point was delivered?

It doesn't matter if you think the POINT was correct or not, it's not even about if you think the video is fine or not.
if the matter of style is getting in the way of presenting the POINT, then obviously it isn't a good video to deliver his POINT, is it?
It's about did Blizzard watch the whole video without those BW presentation getting in their way of thinking.

as for why don't I do a proper video, this is a silly argument.
can you do better than twitchtv? then do you have to accept as it is with all the lags?


Bottom point: The predecessor had more flare in gameplay and had more groundbreaking micro opportunities than the sequels. Blizzard have to accept that their sequel couldn't follow the big brother's footstep. So far, Blizzard have refused to do that and there is no hope left.
2014 - ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ Raise your bows brood warriors! ᕙ( •̀ل͜•́) ϡ
Prev 1 49 50 51 52 53 61 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 2m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
trigger 59
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 605
Leta 572
Killer 374
actioN 322
PianO 168
Light 117
Backho 110
JulyZerg 89
Sharp 85
EffOrt 74
[ Show more ]
BeSt 45
Rush 19
zelot 19
Sacsri 18
NaDa 17
Noble 15
sSak 10
Bale 2
Dota 2
XcaliburYe516
XaKoH 355
League of Legends
JimRising 528
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1727
shoxiejesuss662
Other Games
ceh9683
Happy320
Pyrionflax161
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH336
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 2
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2223
League of Legends
• Stunt492
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
1h 2m
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
4h 2m
WardiTV European League
7h 2m
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
7h 2m
Big Brain Bouts
7h 2m
Korean StarCraft League
18h 2m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 1h
RSL Revival
1d 1h
FEL
1d 7h
RSL Revival
2 days
[ Show More ]
FEL
2 days
BSL: ProLeague
2 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.