On November 18 2013 14:14 Wombat_NI wrote: Any subbed/transcripts of good examples of this commentary?
This game is not only a great demonstration of Boxer's genius, but the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2.
Sounds the same as high level SC2 analysis. Theres probably a couple differences I can think of immediately, but it has nothing to do with the quality itself of general SC2 analysis.
[...] Back in BW there was a 50% chance to miss. [...]
Just to satisfy my daily need of nitpicking; it was actually 30%, however, that does not change the argument.
Edit: punctuation and rephrasing.
I think it was trees that gave 50% which meant you needed to get past two RNG tables to hit a unit beneath a tree on high ground.
But that aside, Wombat is right that the analysis had less to do with te quality of the casters than the quality of the game itself. Ie, talking about a game mechanic whether it be "high ground" or marine splits is, in the end, the same.
As such, in this video specifically, the casters don't talk about the game an more than roti talks about force fields.
How entertaining the commentary sounds is subjective. But not distinctly different.
On November 18 2013 10:55 SsDrKosS wrote: I think blizzard at least should allow some sort of test map that everyone can try... I want to try soooo bad
Seriously, (no offence to girl players) high school girls were yelling at screens of bw even without any comprehension on actual state of the game (they probably knew who is winning but not every micros and macros).
After watching many scbw highlights in comparison to sc2 highlights, Sc2 lacks visual impact despite of better graphic tbh.
SC:BW's intricacies were described perfectly by Korean commentators there. They actually goes into detail of how each nuances function down to quantum level of button selection, mouse clicks and how fast each of those moves have to done in order to pull off at pro level. THAT is what makes the audience awe-inspired by two nerds battling out in "time capsules", yes they actually name the booth "time capsules".
In SC2, commentators are out there making silly jokes, saying the most generic sentence on the gameplay, and just plain biased toward a certain player (see JD vs sOs). Whether or not they decide to focus on other aspects of the scene rather than the game itself is because the game doesn't possess those superhuman moments in BW is not in my position to comment. However there is definitely a strong correlation between the two events.
Casters needs to break down all the action of the players in order for the audience to connect with them. One must always think to himself while watching SC "Wow, I don't think I can pull that off if my life depends on it."
While I don't disagree with what you say I would like to state that it never mattered what the koreans said for most foriegn viewers. For me the game produced the magic while the excitement from the koreans voices reinforced my feelings that I just saw something incredible.
On November 18 2013 06:22 Wombat_NI wrote: Perhaps the case with the air changes. The turret change really should be stuck in, no testing needed
Seconded, there is no reason why the tank muzzle has to point into the direction the tank is driving. Isn't that also how tanks function in real life?
Most modern tanks can fire while moving, so yes. That was not always the case, but as these are space tanks, we can assume they could at well. However, the seige tanks should still have to stop to fire, because you know, video games.
I was playing BW the other day and I realised how much I had to babysit units because they would keep bumping into each other and such. It reminded me of something that bothered me in my first impressions of SC2 years ago, that units seem to lack an "individuality". I'm not sure if it was mentioned before (I'm sure it has been), the way units bounce out of the way for passing units. And I don't know if increased separation radius will help.
Take for example, if you tried in WC3 (or some other RTSes like C&C) to move an individual unit out of a crowd, the crowd might respond for a bit and just give up eventually. In SC2, units literally bounce out of the way, like everyone shared the same brain and acted as one body. Maybe it's outdated from a gameplay/programming standpoint, but I kinda liked how units sometimes had to stop for a split second and recalculate their tracks because a friendly got in their way.
I kinda support a tank being able to turn its muzzle and shoot. I think it might create some micro plays that are fun to watch.
This game is not only a great demonstration of Boxer's genius, but the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2.
Sounds the same as high level SC2 analysis. Theres probably a couple differences I can think of immediately, but it has nothing to do with the quality itself of general SC2 analysis.
He said that its "the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2."
Back in BW there was a 50% chance to miss. The only reason BoxeR was able to play against the metagame and create some amazing innovative tactics in that game was because of that reason. Had it been sc2, the high ground advantage would have been lost as soon as you get vision, aka as soon as the barracks' moved out..
I totally agree with him.
Yeah but look what he quoted. Unless he just likes to randomly interject off-tangent arguments about BW high ground mechanics, I think he intended multiple points.
This game is not only a great demonstration of Boxer's genius, but the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2.
Sounds the same as high level SC2 analysis. Theres probably a couple differences I can think of immediately, but it has nothing to do with the quality itself of general SC2 analysis.
[...] Back in BW there was a 50% chance to miss. [...]
Just to satisfy my daily need of nitpicking; it was actually 30%, however, that does not change the argument.
Edit: punctuation and rephrasing.
I approve of the correction, however I'm not convinced it's actually accurate.
If you have anything that proves otherwise I'd be keen to see it thanks (Also I'd be happy if in sc2 there was a 30% chance to miss or a 30% damage reduction for low->high ground attacks, that'd make my day)
On November 19 2013 05:19 rd wrote: Yeah but look what he quoted. Unless he just likes to randomly interject off-tangent arguments about BW high ground mechanics, I think he intended multiple points.
Sorry I derped up and didn't see the quote and wasn't sure why you focused on the commentary ><
I agree with having high ground advantage in sc2 and I agree that the commentary didn't seem any better than our current casting
This game is not only a great demonstration of Boxer's genius, but the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2.
Sounds the same as high level SC2 analysis. Theres probably a couple differences I can think of immediately, but it has nothing to do with the quality itself of general SC2 analysis.
[...] Back in BW there was a 50% chance to miss. [...]
Just to satisfy my daily need of nitpicking; it was actually 30%, however, that does not change the argument.
Edit: punctuation and rephrasing.
I approve of the correction, however I'm not convinced it's actually accurate.
If you have anything that proves otherwise I'd be keen to see it thanks (Also I'd be happy if in sc2 there was a 30% chance to miss or a 30% damage reduction for low->high ground attacks, that'd make my day)
On November 18 2013 06:22 Wombat_NI wrote: Perhaps the case with the air changes. The turret change really should be stuck in, no testing needed
Seconded, there is no reason why the tank muzzle has to point into the direction the tank is driving. Isn't that also how tanks function in real life?
Third..ed?
Well, from what I remember it I think it was supposed to be 30% at least. What it was in reality I never really investigated, and I wasn't around Starcraft discussions before SC2 so I never heard whether or not this percentage was accurate.
...Come to think of it, where did I get 30% from? I've remembered the number for several years but I can't even say when I stumbled across it. Oh well, it doesn't change the fact that a straight-up reduction of received damage when being on high ground would absolutely incentivize more cliff play.
This game is not only a great demonstration of Boxer's genius, but the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2.
Sounds the same as high level SC2 analysis. Theres probably a couple differences I can think of immediately, but it has nothing to do with the quality itself of general SC2 analysis.
[...] Back in BW there was a 50% chance to miss. [...]
Just to satisfy my daily need of nitpicking; it was actually 30%, however, that does not change the argument.
Edit: punctuation and rephrasing.
I approve of the correction, however I'm not convinced it's actually accurate.
If you have anything that proves otherwise I'd be keen to see it thanks (Also I'd be happy if in sc2 there was a 30% chance to miss or a 30% damage reduction for low->high ground attacks, that'd make my day)
On November 19 2013 01:02 JustPassingBy wrote:
On November 18 2013 06:22 Wombat_NI wrote: Perhaps the case with the air changes. The turret change really should be stuck in, no testing needed
Seconded, there is no reason why the tank muzzle has to point into the direction the tank is driving. Isn't that also how tanks function in real life?
Third..ed?
Well, from what I remember it I think it was supposed to be 30% at least. What it was in reality I never really investigated, and I wasn't around Starcraft discussions before SC2 so I never heard whether or not this percentage was accurate.
...Come to think of it, where did I get 30% from? I've remembered the number for several years but I can't even say when I stumbled into it. Oh well, it doesn't change the fact that a straight-up reduction of received damage when being on high ground would absolutely incentivize more cliff play.
Prior to the thread, I didn't know that it was 50%, but now that it is, that's quite a huge difference. I'm guessing that it's 50% and not 70% because we play at a faster game speed than blizzards default "fast" setting, and I recall reading that the RNG determining a hit or miss depends on the system time as a random generation seed or something. (Well I'm not sure if I'm making sense.)
This game is not only a great demonstration of Boxer's genius, but the perfect argument for why high-ground advantages should be brought back to StarCraft 2.
Sounds the same as high level SC2 analysis. Theres probably a couple differences I can think of immediately, but it has nothing to do with the quality itself of general SC2 analysis.
[...] Back in BW there was a 50% chance to miss. [...]
Just to satisfy my daily need of nitpicking; it was actually 30%, however, that does not change the argument.
Edit: punctuation and rephrasing.
I approve of the correction, however I'm not convinced it's actually accurate.
If you have anything that proves otherwise I'd be keen to see it thanks (Also I'd be happy if in sc2 there was a 30% chance to miss or a 30% damage reduction for low->high ground attacks, that'd make my day)
On November 19 2013 01:02 JustPassingBy wrote:
On November 18 2013 06:22 Wombat_NI wrote: Perhaps the case with the air changes. The turret change really should be stuck in, no testing needed
Seconded, there is no reason why the tank muzzle has to point into the direction the tank is driving. Isn't that also how tanks function in real life?
Third..ed?
Well, from what I remember it I think it was supposed to be 30% at least. What it was in reality I never really investigated, and I wasn't around Starcraft discussions before SC2 so I never heard whether or not this percentage was accurate.
...Come to think of it, where did I get 30% from? I've remembered the number for several years but I can't even say when I stumbled across it. Oh well, it doesn't change the fact that a straight-up reduction of received damage when being on high ground would absolutely incentivise more cliff play.
Prior to the thread, I didn't know that it was 50%, but now that it is, that's quite a huge difference. I'm guessing that it's 50% and not 70% because we play at a faster game speed than blizzards default "fast" setting, and I recall reading that the RNG determining a hit or miss depends on the system time as a random generation seed or something. (Well I'm not sure if I'm making sense.)
I'm with you, as long as you're hinting at that the RNG is not entirely random; its behaviour is too dependant on the system's internal clock, meaning that its not entirely RNG when the game speed is increased.
~50% is huge according to me, though. I can't argue for or against it, but intuitively it feels way too much. I already thought 30% was quite a hefty advantage.
On November 19 2013 18:42 Vicissitude wrote: ~50% is huge according to me, though. I can't argue for or against it, but intuitively it feels way too much. I already thought 30% was quite a hefty advantage. g.
I very much agree so.. I always felt like 30% or even 25% was a good place. I feel like it should be implemented in sc2 or at least tried out... however they choose to do so, such as in LotV beta or by slowly adding it in like 5% ->10% and seeing what happens..
about the vid, I linked it mostly because I liked the commentary. Sorry about sounding off-topic / ranty, I do that sometimes...
English commentary feels kind of lazy and meh. It kind of feels like they drift between forced excitement and bored mumbling, occasionally stating the obvious or "wow, amazing korean magic! so good!"
As for the topic itself...I dunno wtf there is to talk about anymore.
On November 21 2013 15:25 PineapplePizza wrote: about the vid, I linked it mostly because I liked the commentary. Sorry about sounding off-topic / ranty, I do that sometimes...
English commentary feels kind of lazy and meh. It kind of feels like they drift between forced excitement and bored mumbling, occasionally stating the obvious or "wow, amazing korean magic! so good!"
As for the topic itself...I dunno wtf there is to talk about anymore.
Does saying that boxer is using the high ground really that different from tastosis saying "those splits we're amazing"
On November 22 2013 01:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I just feel some of the Korean commentary is put on a pedestal, namely we non-Koreans can't judge for ourselves, so it obtains this mythic status
I was expecting more :p albeit that's only one clip
The passion sounds way cooler when you can't understand what they are saying. I would love an English caster to try the "horse racing" casting style and see what the response would be. (Not good)
Ok, this discussion has kind of run its course now. I saw lots of you people agreeing you'd like to see more micro, lots that believe it would improve the game. I've seen balance concerns, and I've seen nitpicking regarding the way this article was presented.
Why don't you people stop arguing and, start pooling your collective wisdom and intelligence together and, make another video, with a better presentation that addresses more concerns. And why don't we make a more collective and united push to make Blizzard take not that, this is the direction we actually want the game to go into.
Reliable, responsive and consistent units across the board, slower but better battles, more back and forth micro, more small skirmishes.
Its a pity I see more of you arguing over semantics instead of arguing how to best convince Blizzard to give this a try in Legacy of the Void.
On November 22 2013 01:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I just feel some of the Korean commentary is put on a pedestal, namely we non-Koreans can't judge for ourselves, so it obtains this mythic status
I was expecting more :p albeit that's only one clip
The passion sounds way cooler when you can't understand what they are saying. I would love an English caster to try the "horse racing" casting style and see what the response would be. (Not good)
disagree
If someone shows passion, he shows passion if someone pretends to show passion then he protends
I think a high ground advantage would be good, but honestly any kind of RNG system doesn't fit well with Starcraft. I'd rather see like a +1 range for units on high ground and -1 range on units shooting from low ground, or anything like this.
As for korean casting, I'm more interested as to why they're opting for a tri-cast model. I think our current casters are great, only annoying thing for me, is that many of them feel the need to constantly talk.
On November 22 2013 17:45 ejozl wrote: I think a high ground advantage would be good, but honestly any kind of RNG system doesn't fit well with Starcraft. I'd rather see like a +1 range for units on high ground and -1 range on units shooting from low ground, or anything like this.
I may make a wild assumption by saying so, but I think the general consensus is that yes, any sort of chance-based mechanic would be detrimental seeing as how you could just make high ground give you +2 armour or whatnot. It's my opinion at least, but most posts I've seen about it tends toward not using RNG.
EPT
