|
It's not just about f2p vs traditional models. It's more about giving incentives to blizz to financially care about continually developing the game, because, for instance, they take a cut from buy-in tournaments hosted on battle.net, or they share in profits from maps sold on the arcade. They abandoned all those types of revenue sources. Maybe it wasn't worth the effort I guess?
|
On January 12 2014 08:28 TotalBiscuit wrote:
F2P is not going to work unless they redesign the entire netcode. You think hacking is bad now? Wait until you don't have to pay $60 to get back in after you get banned... holy shit
Yeah it's probably too late for any such change now, I was just doing ifs and buts. If they had gone down another road in 2010, we might be in a different situation.
Also you need to do more Starbow. I could kill someone if it meant I got some TvP from ex BW pros. Fuck me that mod is fun.
|
On January 12 2014 08:28 TotalBiscuit wrote:
F2P is not going to work unless they redesign the entire netcode. You think hacking is bad now? Wait until you don't have to pay $60 to get back in after you get banned... holy shit
Since you are already in this thread and you may have some insider info... Do you think Dustin Browder, David Kim etc are inclined to agree with some of us stating there are some flaws in SC2 economy/protoss design and they will be trying to correct them? (Also, pls cast some Starbow TvP, should be great fun for someone who has not seen too much of BW TvP ^^)
|
On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC.
Enumerate them.
|
On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 03:33 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 03:31 Plansix wrote:On January 12 2014 03:29 Chaggi wrote:
I'm not sure if it's cause it's new, but that TvP in Starbow looked fucking amazing I am willing to be it is because it is new. There is stupid bull shit in that game and we just need to find it. It will be a different flavor of bullshit that SC2, but it will be bullshit. Every game has bullshit. You seem terrified by the thought of something just plain being better than SC2. Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me. Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 05:05 Sapphire.lux wrote:On January 12 2014 04:46 Squat wrote:
OH holy sheit yes, the release of Bnet 2.0 in that state is inexcusable, absolutely no other word will do justice to the sheer level of incompetence and baffling quantity of cluelessness that must have been funneled into that decision. It's like releasing a car with no steering wheel and then saying "yeah we'll patch it in later". They copied the xbox stuff, sort of. They forgot that we, the PC master race, have actual standards and stuff. The mistake with Bnet is one of the few heavily criticised aspects of SC2 they have admitted to. Bnet 2.0 should just be called 2009-2010's ideas on how multiplayer works. Fresh off the success of CoD 4 and MW2, the all video game industry was talking about how the standard concepts of multiplayer was dead. No more servers, no more chat rooms. Just auto match making and parties. Fast forward to 2011-2012 and everyone is like "You fuckers, we liked chat rooms in all their flawed bullshit" and computers games take off again on Steam. Everyone realizes that Xbox live is not the be all end all and we start getting chat rooms back. Really Bnet 2.0 is just a causality of Xbox Live's success.
Yeah, i think you've got it right.
|
Bnet2 was designed by the person behind xboxlive (hes since been fired/left blizz)
|
The same logic they used to justify BL/infestor. Sad that Blizzard hasn't learned anything throughout the entire length of SC2.
|
On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them.
Yeah don't think so. In any army based RTS games, micromanagement is the core concept.
And for those who aren't familiar with SC2 mods, do yourself a favor and please check out StarBow. Just after I made the post about the good aspects of SC2, that mod included all of them inside (+ all of BW ones) w/ only one extra unit added in Marauders thus further confirming that those are the only units that have micro potential in the game and that the BW designers have got the micro potential department correct.
Please check the mod out and spread it to your friends. It is an RTS that the SC2's team wish they made.
|
What are the straight up win percentages? That's what I want to know.
|
On January 12 2014 11:49 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Yeah don't think so. In any army based RTS games, micromanagement is the core concept. And for those who aren't familiar with SC2 mods, do yourself a favor and please check out StarBow. Just after I made the post about the good aspects of SC2, that mod included all of them inside (+ all of BW ones) w/ only one extra unit added in Marauders thus further confirming that those are the only units that have micro potential in the game and that the BW designers have got the micro potential department correct. Please check the mod out and spread it to your friends. It is an RTS that the SC2's team wish they made.
Posts like that won't help the mod at all, pls stop that, you are the wrong person to do so, if anything that post hurts starbow.
|
On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them.
Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro?
Just off my head:
Company of heroes
Age of empire
Total war
Lotr battle for middle Earth
Rise of nation
|
On January 10 2014 11:32 HelloSon wrote:
Was that the first time Dayvie put out stats like that on his blog?
No. He has cited stats and winrates many many times in many statements in many places. Im surprised hes still doing this stuff now that hes on the hearthstone team. I thought they had replaced him with a new balance designer.
|
On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation
He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time.
|
On January 12 2014 12:52 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time.
his previous sentence said something along the line that you assume SC2 RTS should have units with high micro potential.
He meant great RTS games do not need to be great to have SC:BW level of unit micro potential, thus not reliant on BW level amount of micro.
you can't interpret his sentence without reading the whole thing.
|
On January 12 2014 12:59 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:52 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time. his previous sentence said something along the line that you assume SC2 RTS should have units with high micro potential. He meant great RTS games do not need to be great to have SC:BW level of unit micro potential, thus not reliant on BW level amount of micro. you can't interpret his sentence without reading the whole thing.
Company of Heroes requires you to utilize the terrain for cover and to maximize your army's usage, high micro potential.
Age of Empire franchise have fairly slower battle than SC2 and thus increase the time of microability.
Those two games still have high micro potentials. Plus those games didn't nearly attract as much attention to BW because BW's units were much more exciting to spectate. Learn from the best of the best.
|
On January 12 2014 13:12 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:59 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 12:52 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time. his previous sentence said something along the line that you assume SC2 RTS should have units with high micro potential. He meant great RTS games do not need to be great to have SC:BW level of unit micro potential, thus not reliant on BW level amount of micro. you can't interpret his sentence without reading the whole thing. Company of Heroes requires you to utilize the terrain for cover and to maximize your army's usage, high micro potential. Age of Empire franchise have fairly slower battle than SC2 and thus increase the time of microability. Those two games still have high micro potentials. Plus those games didn't nearly attract as much attention to BW because BW's units were much more exciting to spectate. Learn from the best of the best.
Both CoH and AoE require more tactics than micro. Their micro requirement is no where close to bw or even sc2 level
I am not saying sc2 doesn't need to learn from bw.
I am just telling you that a rts can still be regarded as one of the best without needing that level of micro potential.
|
On January 12 2014 13:12 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:59 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 12:52 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time. his previous sentence said something along the line that you assume SC2 RTS should have units with high micro potential. He meant great RTS games do not need to be great to have SC:BW level of unit micro potential, thus not reliant on BW level amount of micro. you can't interpret his sentence without reading the whole thing. Company of Heroes requires you to utilize the terrain for cover and to maximize your army's usage, high micro potential. Age of Empire franchise have fairly slower battle than SC2 and thus increase the time of microability. Those two games still have high micro potentials. Plus those games didn't nearly attract as much attention to BW because BW's units were much more exciting to spectate. Learn from the best of the best.
Company of Heroes had terrible micro and control. The game prioritized animation over action and it was totally random what events took place at times. Members of squads would move out from behind cover, even through they were commended to go behind cover. This could cause them to become suppressed or cause them to no fire. Units would not fire when told, or fire randomly. The worst were anti tank weapons on infantry, which would not fire regularly and the AI could decided to jump for the dirt 3 times before firing.
Unlike every unit in SC2, which shoots when you tell it to fucking shoot. Lets no rewrite RTS history when it comes to the games made by Relic.
|
On January 12 2014 13:44 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 13:12 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:59 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 12:52 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:On January 12 2014 05:27 Plansix wrote:
Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me.
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol. Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory. Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time. his previous sentence said something along the line that you assume SC2 RTS should have units with high micro potential. He meant great RTS games do not need to be great to have SC:BW level of unit micro potential, thus not reliant on BW level amount of micro. you can't interpret his sentence without reading the whole thing. Company of Heroes requires you to utilize the terrain for cover and to maximize your army's usage, high micro potential. Age of Empire franchise have fairly slower battle than SC2 and thus increase the time of microability. Those two games still have high micro potentials. Plus those games didn't nearly attract as much attention to BW because BW's units were much more exciting to spectate. Learn from the best of the best. Both CoH and AoE require more tactics than micro. Their micro requirement is no where close to bw or even sc2 level I am not saying sc2 doesn't need to learn from bw. I am just telling you that a rts can still be regarded as one of the best without needing that level of micro potential.
Imo, to execute the tactics, it is still required to control units.
|
On January 12 2014 14:26 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 13:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 13:12 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:59 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 12:52 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 12:44 ETisME wrote:On January 12 2014 08:53 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 08:20 Sufinsil wrote:On January 12 2014 06:23 Xiphos wrote:On January 12 2014 06:14 Squat wrote:
[quote]
That's funny, I have similar feelings towards people who hysterically defend SC2 from every point of criticism and for some reason seem to believe that just because blizzard made the game and not the community, they should just blindly accept every aspect of it regardless of how stupid or broken it is. The sanctimoniousness is pretty bizarre. "Just be happy they made the game at all!" Just lol.
Anyway, people were told since WoL to make a mod if they didn't like the game, and here we are. If you truly are serious about being a positive presence, then supporting efforts like this seems rather mandatory.
Its all the definition of being "better" and the properties of being "better". A video game have mainly 2 aspects: How the game functions, or what is known as the gameplay and the video output of the game, or the graphics. We can also add the audio angle into the equation but audio isn't exactly necessary to define a game. Now if we were to delve deeper into semantics, an online video game adds the community factor into play. It is how well a system is set up in order to maximize the social aspect of the product. So far we got the criteria ready to semantically determine an RTS game's superiority over another in gameplay, graphics, sound, and community system. In criticising the gameplay of RTS games, generally speaking, what separates strategy games are how many more variables that one have to think of to complete the goal of winning. A good example would be Go vs chess in a sense that Go is much more complicated game than chess. In adding the Real-time elements into the mixture is how more efficient one can emulate a strategy. We know that people generally like to be in control of certain circumstances. In order to make a game enjoyable to play is to make one's time in playing the game more satisfying that the result isn't determine by a single factor at play as that creates frustration. SC2 is a game w/ less factors of winning than BW as it takes macroability out of the game, downplays harassement options, and makes comeback scenerios much less likely due to fast paced unit-clumping mechanisms and retreating into a higher advantage location. Another thing of RTS games is that units should have high micro potentials. LaLush explored that pretty well with Depth of Gameplay. Units that have high microability in SC2 are the Stalkers, Marines, Banelings, Medivac drops, Roaches/Infestors, Reapers, Banshees and Vikings. BW had MnMs, Lurkers, Mutalisks, Corsairs, Vultures, Wraith, HTs, Shuttle combos, Defilers, Carriers just much more units potential of microing. We can conclude that in terms of gameplay, BW definitely have an edge over SC2. I've been hearing some horrible stuff on SC2's B.net 2.0 but in my time playing SC2, I wasn't playing for the community aspect of the game but rather just plain lattering so I can't comment on it. Very broad generalization of RTS games. You meant Starcraft2 RTS (Or seems Brood War, since SC2 took out some micro aspects of the game and you are comparing it to BW) games should have units with high micro potential. There are great RTS games not reliant on micro like SC. Enumerate them. Aren't most rts don't require starcraft style micro? Just off my head: Company of heroes Age of empire Total war Lotr battle for middle Earth Rise of nation He said "not reliant on micro", all those games needs micro. Don't waste your time. his previous sentence said something along the line that you assume SC2 RTS should have units with high micro potential. He meant great RTS games do not need to be great to have SC:BW level of unit micro potential, thus not reliant on BW level amount of micro. you can't interpret his sentence without reading the whole thing. Company of Heroes requires you to utilize the terrain for cover and to maximize your army's usage, high micro potential. Age of Empire franchise have fairly slower battle than SC2 and thus increase the time of microability. Those two games still have high micro potentials. Plus those games didn't nearly attract as much attention to BW because BW's units were much more exciting to spectate. Learn from the best of the best. Both CoH and AoE require more tactics than micro. Their micro requirement is no where close to bw or even sc2 level I am not saying sc2 doesn't need to learn from bw. I am just telling you that a rts can still be regarded as one of the best without needing that level of micro potential. Imo, to execute the tactics, it is still required to control units.
As a former professional AOE2 player, I'd have to agree that tactics was more important than micro. With things like formations involved, once a battle started, there really was not a large amount of micro that helped you. It was either stay or run with your entire army. Having many different armies doing different things was very important, but that is not what is considered micro by most here.
|
On January 12 2014 03:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 02:17 Iron_ wrote:On January 11 2014 13:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 11 2014 13:32 Iron_ wrote:On January 11 2014 12:44 Azelja wrote:
I really don't get why they still post the winratios of any league other than GM or high profile tournaments.
Of course they are going to be close to 50%, that's how you designed the ladder, so that everyone aside from the top dogs have an even win/loss ratio! That doesn't tell us anything about balance o_O What the hell?! Yes sir, I think just about every non protoss fan boy in this thread is screaming this same thing. DK's post came off as condescending and was certainly full of useless stats from a system designed to make everybody 50% no matter what. It is VERY obvious that they are not working on SC2 anymore, and have completely moved on to their MOBA game. When is the last time you heard someone over at Blizzard say "So I was PLAYING TERRAN ON LADDER and here is what I think!"? Yea.... exactly. They haven't played this game in quite some time. Wow, the shit people make up to whine gets ridiculous... David Kim says he plays ladder like every single time he goes on a live chat. And the last one was Unfiltered from like...a couple months ago? And even if no one said "I play ladder", that clearly means that they don't have any staff that plays/tests/monitors the games... So please stop pulling bullshit from your ass. So David Kim said..... TWO months ago.... that he played some zerg on ladder? This is relevant to the current broken as hell PvT as of today how? A nd yes, the fact that *nobody* at Blizzard refers to the game from a player perspective DOES in fact mean to me that they are not playing the game. There is no other reason to do nothing but spew irrelevant stats in mass to justify a broken situation. When I balanced professionally for Ensemble studios, we understood that the feel of the game and the player experience was every bit as important as some pile of stats. It seems quite obvious that is more important to the game's longevity than "50%" is. If they do not speak from a players perspective (in this case a Terran players perspective) than they do not understand the pulse of this game. LoL - "They don't type the words I like, so they don't play the game. Period. Its fact now because the word don't say exactly what I want them too." DK plays ladder. He always has and always will. Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 03:09 Zealously wrote:On January 12 2014 02:17 Iron_ wrote:On January 11 2014 13:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 11 2014 13:32 Iron_ wrote:On January 11 2014 12:44 Azelja wrote:
I really don't get why they still post the winratios of any league other than GM or high profile tournaments.
Of course they are going to be close to 50%, that's how you designed the ladder, so that everyone aside from the top dogs have an even win/loss ratio! That doesn't tell us anything about balance o_O What the hell?! Yes sir, I think just about every non protoss fan boy in this thread is screaming this same thing. DK's post came off as condescending and was certainly full of useless stats from a system designed to make everybody 50% no matter what. It is VERY obvious that they are not working on SC2 anymore, and have completely moved on to their MOBA game. When is the last time you heard someone over at Blizzard say "So I was PLAYING TERRAN ON LADDER and here is what I think!"? Yea.... exactly. They haven't played this game in quite some time. Wow, the shit people make up to whine gets ridiculous... David Kim says he plays ladder like every single time he goes on a live chat. And the last one was Unfiltered from like...a couple months ago? And even if no one said "I play ladder", that clearly means that they don't have any staff that plays/tests/monitors the games... So please stop pulling bullshit from your ass. So David Kim said..... TWO months ago.... that he played some zerg on ladder? This is relevant to the current broken as hell PvT as of today how? And yes, the fact that *nobody* at Blizzard refers to the game from a player perspective DOES in fact mean to me that they are not playing the game. There is no other reason to do nothing but spew irrelevant stats in mass to justify a broken situation. When I balanced professionally for Ensemble studios, we understood that the feel of the game and the player experience was every bit as important as some pile of stats. It seems quite obvious that is more important to the game's longevity than "50%" is. If they do not speak from a players perspective (in this case a Terran players perspective) than they do not understand the pulse of this game. Does Ensemble Studios run a game that is the livelihood of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of individuals? Do you understand the significance of potentially breaking the game and sending win rates plummeting for one race? Do you understand that if some players suddenly became unable to win anything, online cups or premier tournaments, they would have to retire to be able to make a living? Well they made the new Age of Empires III, that hot new RTS that took the world by storm.
Three things here. First, I had nothing to do with AOE3, I helped design and balance Age of Mythology. Yea I'm old. Considering you posted TWO HUNDRED times in the last week, you are likely a teen that has no idea what that game is.
Second, back in those days, a good 13ish years ago, Esports was nothing but a dream. Nobody made their living off of games, aside from maybe the very best SC1 players only in Korea. I only made my living off of games because I got hired by a game company after winning a couple of big tournaments. There were no teams, there were no sponsors, there were no leagues. Don't start spewing about times that you have no idea about.
Third, them "not saying the words I don't like" has nothing to do with anything. Them NOT PLAYING ANY TERRAN on ladder sure does. DK plays zerg, and this is common knowledge. Why don't we see some REAL examples of balance if he plays Terran, IE some reps? Or some Terran perspective of his PERSONAL experience? Because he doesn't. That's why chief. Now I know you took a while to read this, and I don't want to keep you, so now you can go back to posting every 15 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
