EPTarticle's pretty good though
StarCraft II and Brood War Belong to Different Genres - Pa…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
article's pretty good though | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:01 Euphorbus wrote: I do think that is an interesting aspect of SC BW vs SC2. Battles all over the map during all the game in SC BW vs some harass but otherwise army vs army battles, that was a difference that was not predicted before beta. And I haven't seen it fully and convincingly explained yet. Is it really because of no control group cap? I am not so sure. I always imagined SC2 maps being way smaller, I guess that plays a role as well. I dont think its only the selection cap. Of course the 12 unit cap makes a difference, but there are other factors too. In BW choke points played a huge role with the atrocious pathfinding and all. The idea of moving 30 dragoons across a small bridge or up a small ramp is still giving me nightmares today. You just couldnt move your big armies around like that. The way units attacked was also a big factor. Each race had really strong positional units that could hold a location against a much bigger and more expensive army. Siege Tanks absolutely demolished anything on the ground. Same with lurkers and reavers. And all 3 of these units were very slow or needed to set-up to become effective. You were forced to attack from different angles or attack at different locations because of these strong defensive units. Another point is that units were cheaper in BW. You have the same supply cap in SC2 but all SC2 units in general cost more supply. You just have less units. The macro has also been simplified which allows you to amass big armies more easily. With warpgates protoss can always reinforce an army anywhere on the map. No need to group units back at home. Same with Zerg armies which morph in huge numbers all at once with the way larva work in SC2. I think the reason for the big army vs big army battles in SC2 compared to the many small skirmishes in BW is a combination of all of these reasons plus some more. Highground advantage, no soft-cap on expansions, more spread out expansions, etc etc. | ||
|
PharaphobiaSC
Czech Republic457 Posts
On December 31 2016 05:16 207aicila wrote: Your post on the other hand is a gleaming bastion of usefulness and help. I like the game how it is so yeah... | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:01 Euphorbus wrote: I do think that is an interesting aspect of SC BW vs SC2. Battles all over the map during all the game in SC BW vs some harass but otherwise army vs army battles, that was a difference that was not predicted before beta. And I haven't seen it fully and convincingly explained yet. Is it really because of no control group cap? I am not so sure. Don't know how long you've been reading TL since the account you're on seems awfully new, but it's been explained to death. Unlimited unit selection is probably a minor factor in the particular difference you are talking about, but it is corroborated by: - Different (better) unit pathing and high degree of clumping in SC2 - Lack of high ground advantage or some similarly impactful defender's advantage that can be easily integrated into standard maps - The fact that fights simply do not last as long in SC2 compared to BW, which also means there is less time to react and micro during individual engagements All of these together (and possibly other factors that escape me right now) lead to the situation where it is almost always more efficient to have all your army together when you're engaging. | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:21 PharaphobiaSC wrote: I like the game how it is so yeah... "The only constructive discussion is people blindly agreeing with me rather than... actually having a conversation." Alright friend, carry on. I love how you literally implied that your post was useful, that's the icing on the cake. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On December 31 2016 07:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I actually do not understand how you decide what "should be a core part" tbh. Basically macro should need the least amount of clicks possible? Does it come down to that? Ofc there is no right and wrong per se, but personally i think having more options to be a better macro player is also an important aspect of rts. Streamlining it means there are less options though. From self-analyse i have come up that interaction with your opponent to be the key in an rts and from there i think that should be the core part of the rts genre. Less clicking? Well yes but more relevant clicking and easier to macro with more relevant decisions. Should feel more strategic and tactical how you spend your money. @Keksx This is a years-old argument to be fair. Even if you don't think it's not a core part of all RTS, it is/was at least a core part of StarCraft. What iam saying is that IT SHOULD NOT BE A CORE PART of the rts genre. I know very well its a huge part of Starcraft. This is already the case in Brood War, with bases and units spread out across pretty much the whole map. The elegance in BW's design is that they don't need specific units or buildings for that. The existing ones are enough. What i see in broodwar isnt very interesting how someone masses some defence in one of his expansions. Masscannons+HTS versus zerg or lurker+sunken as zerg vs protoss. Its a deadly defence, yes, but i dont look at this and think "creative" or wonder "whats his plan now?". I want that part in an rts game where its not the same everytime. @euphorbus Yes, I agree that there are many options on what skills to test. I had this argument many times. People wanted to have some meaningful clicking. You could just have it that in your dead time. This is something i think can truly be accomplished - That you have very little deadtime to none in an rts game. you would solve sudoku or other puzzles at your buildings to improve production. That sort of was my absurd argument, but it points out that for some people, emergence still plays a role. It is about space marines fighting aliens, in some parallel or future universe. And things you do have to make sense in that context Interesting idea. Pretty sure something else than this to fit broodwar could come up. The mineral mining in SC is actually a major reason for its success, as has been discussed to death years ago on this forum. But what was it really? It provided mass bases to be built and to be effecient and therefore providing points of interst on the map. Makes it hard to camp for example which can be a big problem in other rts games. | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8307 Posts
| ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:21 207aicila wrote: Don't know how long you've been reading TL since the account you're on seems awfully new, but it's been explained to death. Unlimited unit selection is probably a minor factor in the particular difference you are talking about, but it is corroborated by: - Different (better) unit pathing and high degree of clumping in SC2 - Lack of high ground advantage or some similarly impactful defender's advantage that can be easily integrated into standard maps - The fact that fights simply do not last as long in SC2 compared to BW, which also means there is less time to react and micro during individual engagements All of these together (and possibly other factors that escape me right now) lead to the situation where it is almost always more efficient to have all your army together when you're engaging. Oh, I have been here long enough that I probably have been banned by Rekrul more often than you have posted. I do not agree that this fully explains why battles are drawn out spatially and temporarily in SC BW, when they are focused in SC. Pathing surely plays no role, as it happened in progamer games, and they know how not to bug out the pathing too badly. Clumping probably plays a role, but cannot fully explain it as battles are drawn out in space and time in SC BW before unit numbers get high for clumping to make a true difference. And clumping can only explain the spatial component anyway. I would also argue that the spatial distances are far larger than the length scale on which clumping plays a role. High ground advantage only plays a role when there are cliffs. If so, in SC BW battles would be drawn out in space and time only around cliffs. Also, the length of battles probably plays a role, but cannot fully explain it. If it was only battle duration, then SC BW and SC2 would be similar, until a battle happens. In that case, longer battle duration would have to be the cause of things being drawn out in space and time. Surely, this can explain why battles are drawn out in time, because that's exactly what longer battles are. But not in space. You mention that all this together, and some other things, can fully explain it. I feel it is not convincing and too muddled. Maybe it is something that just isn't obvious. But my main point, almost all things we now talk about were predicted even by 'noobs' before beta (like the person above my post also recognizes). A few things weren't. This is one of them. I can see why some would say it is fully explainable now, but I am not convinced. What iam saying is that IT SHOULD NOT BE A CORE PART of the rts genre. I know very well its a huge part of Starcraft. Maybe it is time to admit that exactly this is why SC BW is more popular than SC2. Imagine in 20 years people showing up in the hundreds to watch a SC2 match. And maybe it is therefore time to admit that, under your private definition of RTS, SC BW is not an RTS. I am not going to tell people what to think and what to like, but what you are saying is at the least a bit odd, at worse contradictory to reality. Ten years ago, people were pissed when you told them they just had a problem with the core mechanics of RTS. I guess that also hasn't changed. And I thought at this point in my life, I would admit to being the same; to not having the energy and interest anymore to play a hardcore RTS. But since I finished my PhD a month ago and taking a break, I actually have had fun on iccup 'fighting the interface', and being completely terrible. On December 31 2016 08:49 TheDougler wrote: It's funny how in a very real sense, the age old multiple building selection (MBS) debate continues even ten years later. I remember in 2007 when that first preview video for SC2 (with the planet cracking mothership) came out people were saying MBS would change the game completely. I guess they're right. Sadly, I can't find the Testie video anymore. It was completely innocent, spontaneous comment. He had no idea it would be the start of any debate. But everything interesting actually ended after his comment. Everything else has been either a repetition of moves, or just outright denial. | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:59 Euphorbus wrote: Oh, I have been here long enough that I probably have been banned by Rekrul more often than you have posted. Haha, didn't know there was anyone who got banned tens of thousands of times. I guess it must have happened on the down low, or maybe I was on break from SC at that time. That's cool actually. | ||
|
thezanursic
5497 Posts
On December 31 2016 05:38 NonY wrote: The author talked very little about what it means to be a successor. Even when we accept his different sub-genre argument, there remain other indicators that SC2 is a successor. Look at how many players and fans replaced BW with SC2, for instance. He doesn't seem very interested in discussing succession at all and instead focuses entirely on game design in his discussion and arguments, but still chose to make his title, main statement and conclusion about succession. I don't get it. I got enticed into reading something I thought I'd never read before and it's just another game design article that I feel like I've already read five versions of. Wait you were enjoying yourself during WoL/HotS? It's hard to tell with you man. I think it's basically a sensational click baity title to get some traction and a reason to talk about why some players prefer one over the other, and a discussion about mechanics in RTS. I noticed that the mods changed the title, it's a good example of the click bait nature; Nobody, or at least a lot fewer people, would read an article or rather an opinion piece titled "Starcraft II and Brood War belong to different Genres" over "SC2 is not a true successor to Brood War". And the title worked, TL is all up in arms about it, soo is Reddit, if this were 2011 with massive traffic on /r/Starcraft and Teamliquid the article would get serious buzz, essentially what I'm trying to say is that the title worked, and if it hadn't been titled this way, you probably wouldn't have read it in the first place. BTW, just rewatched TSL 2 Finals yesterday, good games  | ||
|
grizzlybear
19 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:30 thezanursic wrote: I think it's basically a sensational click baity title to get some traction and a reason to talk about why some players prefer one over the other, and a discussion about mechanics in RTS. I noticed that the mods changed the title, it's a good example of the click bait nature; Nobody, or at least a lot fewer people, would read an article or rather an opinion piece titled "Starcraft II and Brood War belong to different Genres" over "SC2 is not a true successor to Brood War". And the title worked, TL is all up in arms about it, soo is Reddit, if this were 2011 with massive traffic on /r/Starcraft and Teamliquid the article would get serious buzz, essentially what I'm trying to say is that the title worked, and if it hadn't been titled this way, you probably wouldn't have read it in the first place. BTW, just rewatched TSL 2 Finals yesterday, good games Just to be clear, the piece was never published with the succession title. The OP of the Reddit and TL posts chose to ad lib the succession title. Succession was removed from the title days prior to publication. | ||
|
thezanursic
5497 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:16 -NegativeZero- wrote: oh look another sc2 vs bw baiting thread article's pretty good though Yup, it's a very click baity title, but the article was pretty good soo who am I to complain. Also I think that if you want your article, blogpost or opinion piece read you are more or less forced into having a clever or sensational title. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On December 31 2016 08:59 Euphorbus wrote: Pathing surely plays no role, as it happened in progamer games, and they know how not to bug out the pathing too badly. How can you say pathing plays no role in it? I doubt that any person who watched a lot of BW could ever say that pathing plays no role in how battles happen in BW. Just look at Circuit Breaker or Destination with the very narrow bridges. There are so many interesting strategic battles taking place around those bridges because of the bad pathing. If BW had the pathing of SC2 those bridges would not be the same. Battles would not be the same. Outcomes would not be the same. Pathing plays a huge role no matter the skill level. On December 31 2016 08:59 Euphorbus wrote: Clumping probably plays a role, but cannot fully explain it as battles are drawn out in space and time in SC BW before unit numbers get high for clumping to make a true difference. And clumping can only explain the spatial component anyway. I would also argue that the spatial distances are far larger than the length scale on which clumping plays a role. Its not just "clumping" but formation as a whole. If BW units would move like SC2 units battles would happen completely differently. Zerg units would become 10 times worse against siege tanks, templars and reavers. Marines would get shredded by lurkers even worse than they are right now and PvP would see storms and reavers day after day after day after day. The more an army sticks together the more focused is its combined DPS because all units in the army can attack the same target at once. Just compare mutalisks stacked on top of each other to a regular muta cloud without any stacking. The difference is huge. Its the same concept with ground units in SC2 compared to BW. On December 31 2016 08:59 Euphorbus wrote: High ground advantage only plays a role when there are cliffs. If so, in SC BW battles would be drawn out in space and time only around cliffs. Its not *just* highground advantage. Its a stronger defenders advantage in general. Positional units like siege tanks, lurkers and reavers are much more powerful in BW and will severly punish a big army moving blindly into firing range. Reinforcing an army in the middle of the map is also much more difficult in BW. This makes players more cautious and encourages you to scout where the enemy is positioning his army and where his weak spots are. | ||
|
Mahanaim
Korea (South)1002 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:33 grizzlybear wrote: Just to be clear, the piece was never published with the succession title. The OP of the Reddit and TL posts chose to ad lib the succession title. Succession was removed from the title days prior to publication. ? https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2016/12/30/starcraft-ii-is-not-a-successor-to-brood-war/ It's in the URL... I don't mean to drag this on but I'm guessing you changed the headline and overlooked the URL, which ended up causing the confusion you tried to prevent. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
I hope that from the way I argue, you can see how I think and why I am not convinced. I am trained to try to not see patterns that aren't there. I can make more arguments as to why I disagree with pathing inefficiencies being a major cause, but all those details are not important. I have seen nothing new, and in the past, I was not convinced. Neither am I now. One would actually expect the dynamics of an RTS game to be way less predictable and way more counter intuitive than it turned out to be. It is probably synergy and non-linear behavior of these elements. It is probably an emergent property, and not a direct effect of a single game feature. More important, no one, including myself, made the argument against SC2, that battles wouldn't be drawn out in space and time enough. We knew it was in SC BW and we knew we liked it. But we didn't see or predict certain game features eliminating it from SC2. And yes, we debated high ground advantage to death. | ||
|
grizzlybear
19 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:43 NonY wrote: ? https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2016/12/30/starcraft-ii-is-not-a-successor-to-brood-war/ It's in the URL... I don't mean to drag this on but I'm guessing you changed the headline and overlooked the URL. If you read my prior post, this is explained. WordPress creates a URL when an article is first saved as a draft, not published. This article was never published with that title. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:47 grizzlybear wrote: If you read my prior post, this is explained. WordPress creates a URL when an article is first saved as a draft, not published. This article was never published with that title. Yeah I read that. I publish with WordPress myself. I just don't get why you're so bad at understanding what happened. You're going in circles. Your last reply talking about ad lib... you don't know what succession means, you don't know what ad lib means... | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:43 Euphorbus wrote: If SC BW would be like SC2, yes it would be like SC2. But all things you mention can not in itself explain it. I am not denying there is an explanation. I am saying it isn't obvious and the fact that many elements are needed to stack on top of each other, and many of them unclear, proves exactly my point. And what is so bad about that? Why would one expect something to be completely transparent and predictable? It is already amazing enough how well something like the effect of MBS was predicted. I hope that from the way I argue, you can see how I think and why I am not convinced. I am trained to try to not see patterns that aren't there. I can make more arguments as to why I disagree with pathing inefficiencies being a major cause, but all those details are not important. I have seen nothing new, and in the past, I was not convinced. Neither am I now. One would actually expect the dynamics of an RTS game to be way less predictable and way more counter intuitive than it turned out to be. It is probably synergy and non-linear behavior of these elements. It is probably an emergent property, and not a direct effect of a single game feature. More important, no one, including myself, made the argument against SC2, that battles wouldn't be drawn out in space and time enough. We knew it was in SC BW and we knew we liked it. But we didn't see or predict certain game features eliminating it from SC2. And yes, we debated high ground advantage to death. What useless drivel. Do you yourself actually understand what you are trying to say with all that text. | ||
|
thezanursic
5497 Posts
On December 31 2016 09:33 grizzlybear wrote: Just to be clear, the piece was never published with the succession title. The OP of the Reddit and TL posts chose to ad lib the succession title. Succession was removed from the title days prior to publication. Ahh okay, I'll take your word for it since you wrote the article. On December 31 2016 07:35 Foxxan wrote: I dont buy the argument that the clicking on buildings, sending workers to mine etc are a core part of what an rts should look like, be like. If we look at SC2, those things are gone -yes, But what instead is there to do for the player? Not much actually if you think about it. Your units die so fast when you engage, the micro isnt really much either- perhaps tvz in hots was closest to the "much micro to do through the game" but that aside, its not much to do. Spreadning creep imo is super boring - Clicking buildings in broodwar is more fun here. I want a modern RTS without these things broodwar provide BUT ADD other things which occupie the player/s throughout the game. Iam talking relevant stuff. For example, instead of managing your 1base in broodwar(you build most buildings in your main) if you could manage buildings on the map instead and more "tactic" buildings. The right defence here and there , i want to have vision here. I want to control this area of the map right here. and os on Whatever the mechanical aspect to economy might be, there is always an unintended consequence that allows players to have their own stylistic way to play the game, if there is no mechanical aspect to economy there is no dichotomy between a macro focused player and a micro focused player. The author touched on this in this article, but it was very relevant in Brood War, even at the upper ends of the Proscene, at the early days of Brood War you had players who'd exclusively focus on one or the other, as time went on players would get better mechanics across the board, but you'd still get players who would focus on one or the other. I think Day9 actually touches on this in one of his old BW dailies, at 16:35 he later notes while reviewing the second game, that he intentionally focused on mutalisk micro in game 2, because he found his mutalisk micro lacking in game 1, but that affected his ability to macro instead. In the first game he says he wasn't focused enough on his mutalisk control, so he intentionally focused more on his mutalisk control in game 2, but as a consequence his macro suffered a bit, this is not to say you can't improve at both, but you always have to decide where you are going to place your focus, It's a pretty interesting daily overall if you feel like watching it. The better you got at Brood War the better you were at splitting your attention, but as I stated before even two different pro-players might split their attention completely differently, one focusing on his mutalisk harass doing more damage or holding back the terran for longer, or the other focusing on executing the economical side of things more while harassing with his mutalisks, the more the game transitioned in to the later stages of the game the more this becomes the case, obviously at the start of the game there is nothing to focus on other than macro, but even the early game was informed by what the player was good at, micro intensive players were more likely to harass with their early units, I think Bisu is a great example of a protoss who is considerably more aggressive than the average protoss in PvZ and he simply got away with it because his mechanics were that good, most other protosses, BeSt for instance was a macro focused player instead, both made their styles work. Come to think of it the "Six dragons" in Brood War are a pretty good example of 6 protoss players making protoss work for them in different ways in an era when Protosses were suffering. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Six_Dragons | ||
| ||
