|
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. |
On April 18 2016 18:45 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 18:44 solidbebe wrote:On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote:Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow. In what universe do you see this happening? I think that's what would happen if/when Blizzard stops throwing money at SC2 to sustain its pro scene
Or Blizzard just goes for a damage nerf accross the board for all units. What would also be needed is much slower mining.
In other words, you get less units per time, it's easier to make them and once you have them, they can't die in 2 seconds because you weren't watching. Not watching your army costs you a handful of units, not your entire army.
That handful of units matters a lot in professional games where everything counts, but much less so in casual games where mistakes are more prone to happen.
In other words, there is a resource which is scarce in Starcraft: time.
Blizzard would need to make the game fun, not "you lose when you make your first mistake".
I mean, it's appealing to the hardcore RTS fans who are OK with the challenge, but you aren't going to attract and keep a casual audience.
There's also little room for strategy. Strategy is about making the right strategic decisions which allows for a player to attack another player with an inherent advantage (more units, better unit composition, etc.). In starcraft 2, "strategy" at most levels (until you hit Korean levels, I guess) is just about not missing depots or production cycles and attacking when your upgrades hit. You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
How long has that public mod note been up there? I feel like this is my first time seeing it.
|
On April 18 2016 19:18 Seeker wrote:
How long has that public mod note been up there? I feel like this is my first time seeing it.
Also just noticed it for the first time and even read this thread yesterday.
|
On April 18 2016 19:26 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 19:18 Seeker wrote:
How long has that public mod note been up there? I feel like this is my first time seeing it. Also just noticed it for the first time and even read this thread yesterday.
I'm pretty sure it's been there since page 7 or something
|
How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards.
|
On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote:
How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards.
It got moved to SC2 General.
Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant
|
Help how did this self-indulgent tripe come back
|
On April 18 2016 20:39 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote:
How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards. It got moved to SC2 General. Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant
No it's not "relevant" to anything. It's vague enough that anyone who is either dissatisfied with SC2 or needs an excuse for his own suckiness can find enough useful material in it. It has never stimulated any useful discussion apart from confirmatory circlejerk.
|
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote:Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
Living in the past can't be a solution and anyway SB<BW... simply cause the flaws in BW engine and design are a huge part of what made it great.
The solution will come from people giving actual relevant ideas that can be implemented in sc2 (and don't start me with the "Blizzard is not listening" BS, I don't have enough time to list all the times when community ideas went live in sc2)
TheDwf is the perfect example :
- in 2014, he makes ZParcraft article which has huge criticism but is still constructive : within 2 weeks game is patched and Terrans are balanced again
- in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
|
On April 18 2016 20:47 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 20:39 InfCereal wrote:On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote:
How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards. It got moved to SC2 General. Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant No it's not "relevant" to anything. It's vague enough that anyone who is either dissatisfied with SC2 or needs an excuse for his own suckiness can find enough useful material in it. It has never stimulated any useful discussion apart from confirmatory circlejerk.
You're not exactly providing any compelling counter arguments.
|
interesting read 
On April 11 2015 08:54 HewTheTitan wrote:
This sort of reminds me of the Kaufman translation of Nietzsche. Anyone else?
it more reminds me more of the Tony Clifton translation of Nietczsche.
Playability and thus “enjoyability” come from control over various aspects. This is why people involved in games of pure chance systematically develop absurd habits and beliefs in order to recreate the control they no longer have. Control should not be absolute
according to Conor Mcgregor superstition is feared manifested in a different form.
baseball players and golfers systematically develop absurd habits and i'm totally cool with the element of chance involved in their games.
Strategy relies on planning, which means enough time to think. If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
this point seems to make a lot of apparent sense.
however, for me and all my low-apm pals this has been true for a long time and is more pronounced in the other major RTS we play. we view not having time to think as part of the game.
to get into all forms of amazing strategy , planning and careful tactics we need a game played on slow that starts with 4 workers... that ain't happening.
Grey Goo gives you time to think. Hows that goin' ?
SC2 bears all the glaring flaws of a “forced child”. The original Blizzsters didn't try to make a good game, they tried to make an esport. That was the original sin of SC2. What had once been reached by accident would this time be fully enforced.
SC2's ceiling on quality game play lowered the day Pardo was removed from the project. Blizzard was not going to have a guy whose games make billions working on a genre that only generates millions.
i like SC2 a lot. its great fun. i have no doubt this would've been a better game if Pardo worked on it from start to finish. He was pulled off the project early and SC2 been through 3 chief visionaries. Pardo and Browder were simply following the money when they left. Its not like either guy got fired and i can't blame either guy for leaving.
my expectations for SC2 lowered once Pardo was not part of it. Its all ancient histroy now.
|
On April 18 2016 20:48 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote:Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow. Living in the past can't be a solution and anyway SB<BW... simply cause the flaws in BW engine and design are a huge part of what made it great. The solution will come from people giving actual relevant ideas that can be implemented in sc2 (and don't start me with the "Blizzard is not listening" BS, I don't have enough time to list all the times when community ideas went live in sc2) TheDwf is the perfect example : - in 2014, he makes ZParcraft article which has huge criticism but is still constructive : within 2 weeks game is patched and Terrans are balanced again - in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
You're shamelessly brushing aside the fact that he spent dozens (hundreds?) of hours making a major overhaul for SC2, which can be described as 0% criticism, ?% positivity and 100% solution providing.
And I fail to see how things like StarBow or SCynergie are not "relevant ideas that can be implemented in SC2", since they are mods for SC2 that have been implemented, precisely, in SC2...
|
Contracting time = less control. Always, everywhere. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes not. Control doesn't have to be absolute, but there are thresholds to respect. There are different temporalities within the game and Blizzard has apparently failed to identify them. The quality of the game flows from its “control architecture”.
this now devolves into what you subjectively think is "enough control" versus what another guy thinks is "enough control but not absolute control"
|
Yeah quite a few haters are coming into the thread and looking to muck the discussion. Do you mind that we discuss our (subjective) views on the design flaws which are in Starcraft? No need to come it and call the article shit just because you don't agree with it.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what's going on With SCynergie. Where's that at?
|
OMG, I just read this now I want to kiss you for this article.
Because the Colossus is like banksters from Wall Street: “too big to fail”.
:D
|
I don't know why I still read this stuff when I stopped playing/watching the game more than 2 years ago.
|
On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote:You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
well im pretty sure any masters player can beat a silver/gold player using only 50 apm or less
|
On April 18 2016 21:59 Incognoto wrote:
Yeah quite a few haters are coming into the thread and looking to muck the discussion. Do you mind that we discuss our (subjective) views on the design flaws which are in Starcraft? No need to come it and call the article shit just because you don't agree with it.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what's going on With SCynergie. Where's that at?
Right there
|
On April 18 2016 22:31 DinosaurPoop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote:You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"? well im pretty sure any masters player can beat a silver/gold player using only 50 apm or less
You're confusing mechanics and APM. :/
"Mechanics" just means hitting all your production cycles, supply drops (depots, OLs, pylons) or injects perfectly. Yes, it's possible to do that with 50 apm, the point is that hitting your production cycles perfectly does more to help you win the game than strategy does.
"Strategy" being the big strategic decisions you make, so that when you fight your opponent, you're doing so with an inherent advantage. In Korea that would be the sniper builds. But strategy is only relevant if you've acquired sufficient mechanics in the first place.
In other words, to be good at Starcraft (under masters), the idea is to brainlessly make units with optimal macro: don't get supply blocked, don't get idle production time. That's ALL you need to focus on.
Strategy can only be applied when the mechanics are down near perfectly. That's the case in Korea, as well as the professional scene, but it's not the case for the casual player. Hence this articles' arguement that Starcraft is devoid of strategy.
|
On April 18 2016 22:53 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 22:31 DinosaurPoop wrote:On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote:You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"? well im pretty sure any masters player can beat a silver/gold player using only 50 apm or less You're confusing mechanics and APM. :/ "Mechanics" just means hitting all your production cycles, supply drops (depots, OLs, pylons) or injects perfectly. Yes, it's possible to do that with 50 apm, the point is that hitting your production cycles perfectly does more to help you win the game than strategy does. "Strategy" being the big strategic decisions you make, so that when you fight your opponent, you're doing so with an inherent advantage. In Korea that would be the sniper builds. But strategy is only relevant if you've acquired sufficient mechanics in the first place. In other words, to be good at Starcraft (under masters), the idea is to brainlessly make units with optimal macro: don't get supply blocked, don't get idle production time. That's ALL you need to focus on. Strategy can only be applied when the mechanics are down near perfectly. That's the case in Korea, as well as the professional scene, but it's not the case for the casual player. Hence this articles' arguement that Starcraft is devoid of strategy.
Strategy/tactics can be applied when both players playing against each other are close in mechanical skill. It doesn't matter if they are in bronze league or playing in gsl.
To get better at the game improving your mechanics is the more efficient way, which isn't the same as "strategy not mattering till you are in league x"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
