On August 07 2019 13:46 Muliphein wrote: Why are they still adjusting the unit stats of the game? How many times were the stats of SC BW changed? What is the factor of difference?
SC BW became balanced the moment Blizzard abandoned it.
Uh.. the bug with scarabs randomly deals 0 damage is not Balance.
Don't know what you mean. First of all, the SC2 engine is completely bugged. It doesn't allow the user to control the units. It would be a good engine for an RPG, not for an MOBA, and certainly not for an RTS. This was demonstrated by LaLush (and many other before him) in https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro The SC2 engine was engineered to be fundamentally unsuitable for an RTS game. Why did this happen? Because while the engineers did a hell of a job in putting in all these features that seem like a good idea to a non-RTS player, and it is a technical marvel that it all works, in the end the SC2 developers had zero affinity with RTS games.
Second, reavers and balance; the thing patched about reavers was that they used to shoot their scarabs instantly after being unloaded. This made reavers overpowered and broke the game.
You say SC BW is not balanced because reaver scarabs randomly deal no damage, and that this is a bug. First of all, if reavers dealt no damage it wouldn't unbalance the game. If reavers are too weak to use, protoss players simply build their other units. Yes, it will be one less thing to defend against. But that's about it. Now, if scarabs always did full damage all around it when it fails to find it's target, that would make reavers a lot stronger. An overpowered unit breaks balance. Not a weak unit. Scouts are weak units. Scouts don't break the balance of the game.
And lastly, it is factually incorrect that reavers randomly deal zero damage. They deal no damage if it cannot hit it's target. And this is not random. It is up to you if you can this a 'bug' or a 'feature'. To me, SC2 units responding as if they are moving through some very viscous fluid is a bug. To you it is a feature. SC2 units trying to occupy a single spot and them all swarming around that spot and rearranging themselves without receiving any others to do so to minimize their distance to that spot, to me that's a bug. To you it may be a feature.
But nothing about reavers make SC BW unbalanced, broken, or boring. SC2 on the other hand, these 'features make the game not enjoyable to play, because it feels like you are fighting the interface rather than playing the game, and the clumping of the units make positioning of units in battles something that only plays a role at the highest level of play. This in contrast to SC BW, which is much easier to play, and allows even low level players to control their units and get benefit from it.
On August 07 2019 07:33 DomeGetta wrote: Honestly this is pretty bad - BC Mech vs Z is already very strong - as Maru displayed at WCG - now you are going to have better EMP vs infestors and 45% less damage on the main tool Z uses to fight BCs? How is this a viable option?
Understand the intent to make ZvP late game more even - but until we see Zerg dealing with BC mech evenly with the current infestors and ghosts - how can we think its a good idea to literally take half the DPS away from infested terrans which are the main tool to counter BCs while also buffing ghosts?
Lol. Maru crushing Reynor is no indication of balance. Maru is the clear TvZ goat of SC2 with the best TvZ lategame, miles ahead of Reynor mechanically. If Maru crushed Dark 4:0 it could spur a legitimate discussion. But some random beyond the game tourney where 1 player is so much better then the other... not so much
On August 07 2019 06:41 Shuffleblade wrote: Yes, zergs do have one massable powerful unit that creates free units at the cost of energy which can be used as a panic button if anything goes wrong. That is the exact reason they are toning infested terrans down, it is too powerful. I don't like the BCs as they are either and believe they are OP as well but at least they have counters. Infestors have 0 counters.
Yes, that is true for Master and GM, but when I'm forced to counter A-move army with micro intensive army, it should either have clear advantage or not be as difficult. I think that if casting making it so that casting Fungal also unburrows the Infestor that is casting it would help, while not messing pro play, as player with good micro can do this already with just his/her skill.
Zerg player complaining about A-move, and against Terran at that. Now I have seen everything.
Do you remember a time when Terran had to kills Zerg before Ultras? Or before GGLords? Before 15 mins? Or micro and split as a god against BLing muta Amove? I think I remember it, its been going on for the past 5 years at least lol.
Now after so long TvZ lategame is actually quite balanced and Zergs start complaining. Just learn to play against it. Its tough to learn to actually micro your units at first after so long of "spam larvae button and Amove", but with practice it should be possible
On August 07 2019 07:33 DomeGetta wrote: Honestly this is pretty bad - BC Mech vs Z is already very strong - as Maru displayed at WCG - now you are going to have better EMP vs infestors and 45% less damage on the main tool Z uses to fight BCs? How is this a viable option?
Understand the intent to make ZvP late game more even - but until we see Zerg dealing with BC mech evenly with the current infestors and ghosts - how can we think its a good idea to literally take half the DPS away from infested terrans which are the main tool to counter BCs while also buffing ghosts?
Lol. Maru crushing Reynor is no indication of balance. Maru is the clear TvZ goat of SC2 with the best TvZ lategame, miles ahead of Reynor mechanically. If Maru crushed Dark 4:0 it could spur a legitimate discussion. But some random beyond the game tourney where 1 player is so much better then the other... not so much
Yeah I'm not saying it means BC's are broken what I'm saying is that they are strong and viable in the current meta - and blizz is proposing to nerf the counter play by 50% and buff ghosts on top of it - you can emp infestors and in the dynamic vs mass BC u normally dont have many if any broodlords (imagine that) because there is nothing to shoot on the ground aside from ghosts which are really good vs. broodlords.
On August 07 2019 06:41 Shuffleblade wrote: Yes, zergs do have one massable powerful unit that creates free units at the cost of energy which can be used as a panic button if anything goes wrong. That is the exact reason they are toning infested terrans down, it is too powerful. I don't like the BCs as they are either and believe they are OP as well but at least they have counters. Infestors have 0 counters.
Yes, that is true for Master and GM, but when I'm forced to counter A-move army with micro intensive army, it should either have clear advantage or not be as difficult. I think that if casting making it so that casting Fungal also unburrows the Infestor that is casting it would help, while not messing pro play, as player with good micro can do this already with just his/her skill.
Zerg player complaining about A-move, and against Terran at that. Now I have seen everything.
Do you remember a time when Terran had to kills Zerg before Ultras? Or before GGLords? Before 15 mins? Or micro and split as a god against BLing muta Amove? I think I remember it, its been going on for the past 5 years at least lol.
Now after so long TvZ lategame is actually quite balanced and Zergs start complaining. Just learn to play against it. Its tough to learn to actually micro your units at first after so long of "spam larvae button and Amove", but with practice it should be possible
When Bio was 90% of what we saw in TvZ this was relevant - with battle-mech and BC mech taking over the meta - the days of one race clearly having a more difficult time microing are over - there's nothing more difficult about microing battle-mech and BC's than there is about even Protoss units lmao
On August 07 2019 06:41 Shuffleblade wrote: Yes, zergs do have one massable powerful unit that creates free units at the cost of energy which can be used as a panic button if anything goes wrong. That is the exact reason they are toning infested terrans down, it is too powerful. I don't like the BCs as they are either and believe they are OP as well but at least they have counters. Infestors have 0 counters.
Yes, that is true for Master and GM, but when I'm forced to counter A-move army with micro intensive army, it should either have clear advantage or not be as difficult. I think that if casting making it so that casting Fungal also unburrows the Infestor that is casting it would help, while not messing pro play, as player with good micro can do this already with just his/her skill.
Zerg player complaining about A-move, and against Terran at that. Now I have seen everything.
Do you remember a time when Terran had to kills Zerg before Ultras? Or before GGLords? Before 15 mins? Or micro and split as a god against BLing muta Amove? I think I remember it, its been going on for the past 5 years at least lol.
Now after so long TvZ lategame is actually quite balanced and Zergs start complaining. Just learn to play against it. Its tough to learn to actually micro your units at first after so long of "spam larvae button and Amove", but with practice it should be possible
When Bio was 90% of what we saw in TvZ this was relevant - with battle-mech and BC mech taking over the meta - the days of one race clearly having a more difficult time microing are over - there's nothing more difficult about microing battle-mech and BC's than there is about even Protoss units lmao
Did you read the post? Yes, for the last 8 months terran hasn't actually been the most micro intensive race (still the most macro intensive race btw). That doesn't change that for remaining 90% of SC2 lifespan terran has been clearly the most micro intensive and there have never been any zergs around saying "Its too easy to micro muta/ling/bling vs terran whom have it so hard, please balance team make it fair and harder for us to micro" yet when a period dawns when zerg in one late game scenario experience the same discrepencies in micro intensity that terran has had for 90% of the games history in most phases of the game then its a problem.
On August 07 2019 13:46 Muliphein wrote: Why are they still adjusting the unit stats of the game? How many times were the stats of SC BW changed? What is the factor of difference?
SC BW became balanced the moment Blizzard abandoned it.
Uh.. the bug with scarabs randomly deals 0 damage is not Balance.
Don't know what you mean. First of all, the SC2 engine is completely bugged. It doesn't allow the user to control the units. It would be a good engine for an RPG, not for an MOBA, and certainly not for an RTS. This was demonstrated by LaLush (and many other before him) in https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro The SC2 engine was engineered to be fundamentally unsuitable for an RTS game. Why did this happen? Because while the engineers did a hell of a job in putting in all these features that seem like a good idea to a non-RTS player, and it is a technical marvel that it all works, in the end the SC2 developers had zero affinity with RTS games.
Second, reavers and balance; the thing patched about reavers was that they used to shoot their scarabs instantly after being unloaded. This made reavers overpowered and broke the game.
You say SC BW is not balanced because reaver scarabs randomly deal no damage, and that this is a bug. First of all, if reavers dealt no damage it wouldn't unbalance the game. If reavers are too weak to use, protoss players simply build their other units. Yes, it will be one less thing for terrans to defend against. But that's about it. Now, if scarabs always did full damage all around it when it fails to find it's target, that would make reavers a lot stronger. An overpowered unit breaks balance. Not a weak unit. Scouts are weak units. Scouts don't break the balance of the game.
And lastly, it is factually incorrect that reavers randomly deal zero damage. They deal no damage if it cannot hit it's target. And this is not random. It is up to you if you can this a 'bug' or a 'feature'. To me, SC2 units responding as if they are moving through some very viscous fluid is a bug. To you it is a feature. SC2 units trying to occupy a single spot and them all swarming around that spot and rearranging themselves without receiving any others to do so to minimize their distance to that spot, to me that's a bug. To you it may be a feature.
But nothing about reavers make SC BW unbalanced, broken, or boring. SC2 on the other hand, these 'features make the game not enjoyable to play, because it feels like you are fighting the interface rather than playing the game, and the clumping of the units make positioning of units in battles something that only plays a role at the highest level of play. This in contrast to SC BW, which is much easier to play, and allows even low level players to control their units and get benefit from it.
You are literally describing Brood War, a game I also happen to love incidentally.
You’re conflating ‘RTS fundamentals’ (whatever that means) with ‘stuff I like in Brood War’ Scarabs bugging is one thing, it’s far far from the only thing that is not intuitive at all in that game. It’s better to use hold position while retreating and engaging with Dragoons? You can stack your corsairs by bugging a probe between pylons and grouping them? It’s extremely difficult to tell if a wall is tight or not just by looking at it? Patrol micro, etc.
Plenty of this adds to the game sure, what new player isolated from previous knowledge can hope to figure such things out?
As far as I’m aware there is nothing in SC2’s engine that precludes doing certain things like moving shot etc anyway, it’s a matter of how the engine prioritises certain things over others.
You could just swap these priorities and mess with some figures to enable certain behaviours.
SC2 for all its faults has by far the best pathing of any RTS I’ve ever played, which probably means its engine is pretty damn good as a baseline to build an RTS. It’s very consistent and predictable, even with the clumping (that I don’t really like personally).
I mean by all means prefer a game or not, to claim BW is easier to play than SC2 is preposterous though.
On August 07 2019 06:41 Shuffleblade wrote: Yes, zergs do have one massable powerful unit that creates free units at the cost of energy which can be used as a panic button if anything goes wrong. That is the exact reason they are toning infested terrans down, it is too powerful. I don't like the BCs as they are either and believe they are OP as well but at least they have counters. Infestors have 0 counters.
Yes, that is true for Master and GM, but when I'm forced to counter A-move army with micro intensive army, it should either have clear advantage or not be as difficult. I think that if casting making it so that casting Fungal also unburrows the Infestor that is casting it would help, while not messing pro play, as player with good micro can do this already with just his/her skill.
Zerg player complaining about A-move, and against Terran at that. Now I have seen everything.
Do you remember a time when Terran had to kills Zerg before Ultras? Or before GGLords? Before 15 mins? Or micro and split as a god against BLing muta Amove? I think I remember it, its been going on for the past 5 years at least lol.
Now after so long TvZ lategame is actually quite balanced and Zergs start complaining. Just learn to play against it. Its tough to learn to actually micro your units at first after so long of "spam larvae button and Amove", but with practice it should be possible
When Bio was 90% of what we saw in TvZ this was relevant - with battle-mech and BC mech taking over the meta - the days of one race clearly having a more difficult time microing are over - there's nothing more difficult about microing battle-mech and BC's than there is about even Protoss units lmao
Did you read the post? Yes, for the last 8 months terran hasn't actually been the most micro intensive race (still the most macro intensive race btw). That doesn't change that for remaining 90% of SC2 lifespan terran has been clearly the most micro intensive and there have never been any zergs around saying "Its too easy to micro muta/ling/bling vs terran whom have it so hard, please balance team make it fair and harder for us to micro" yet when a period dawns when zerg in one late game scenario experience the same discrepencies in micro intensity that terran has had for 90% of the games history in most phases of the game then its a problem.
Its hilarious.
What’s wrong with Terran being the micro race anyway?
I don’t presume to speak for Dome although I feel he has a similar position to me. As it is it’s hard to control lategame Z and beat mass BCs, hard but absolutely doable and we see it at the top level.
If you were to nerf the current state of affairs, then maybe the pendulum swings too far and it becomes very difficult/borderline undoable, then that’s not exactly desirable.
I’d rather neither, but given a choice I’d rather have Infestors too strong than BCs. As a pretty neutral observer as per racial preference goes.
I don’t think we’re arguing that as things stand the lategame is super unfair, but actually rather OK in this interaction, but too much nerfing (the rationales coming from TvP tweaking) could potentially affect the current state of affairs.
On August 08 2019 07:23 Wombat_NI wrote: You are literally describing Brood War, a game I also happen to love incidentally.
This is getting oh so old. Being able to control units more easily and more accurately is not 'just being identical to SC BW'. SC BW has actual bugs that are not helpful. But SC2 has more of them.
You’re conflating ‘RTS fundamentals’ (whatever that means) with ‘stuff I like in Brood War’ Scarabs bugging is one thing, it’s far far from the only thing that is not intuitive at all in that game.
I never said that scarabs behaving the way they do is a good thing. But it is not a bug and certainly not random. If it is desirable or not is up to debate.
Plenty of this adds to the game sure, what new player isolated from previous knowledge can hope to figure such things out?
SC2 is less intuitive. If you are new to SC2 and you try to micro your units, you will make it worse. If you are new to SC BW and you try to micro your units, you are improving the performance of your units.
As far as I’m aware there is nothing in SC2’s engine that precludes doing certain things like moving shot etc anyway, it’s a matter of how the engine prioritises certain things over others.
You didn't watch the video. They hard coded all these things into the engine which are engineering marvels but completely antithetical to RTS. And all SC2 players do is complain their race was nerfed in the large balance patch. The latency SC2 had during beta and initial release is another example. Blizzard never had people sit down in a room and discuss 'let's make the best engine for RTS possible. But what qualities make an engine a good RTS engine?' because that required a completely upside down way of thinking compared to WoW. When Blizzard started developing SC2, they had almost no RTS expertise in-house. During beta, they weren't even able to understand user feedback. And this shows in the engine.
SC2 for all its faults has by far the best pathing of any RTS I’ve ever played, which probably means its engine is pretty damn good as a baseline to build an RTS. It’s very consistent and predictable, even with the clumping (that I don’t really like personally).
I mean by all means prefer a game or not, to claim BW is easier to play than SC2 is preposterous though.
Why? SC BW is way easier and intuitive to understand. In SC2, units have a mind of their own. The rules that govern unit behavior in SC2 are way more complex than in SC BW. Exactly because the UI tries to be more powerful. On top of that, the core game itself is also more complicated. Blizzard added 'macro mechanics' to make the game more 'difficult', which makes no sense and makes the game more difficult that it ought to be. There are more units and most units have a special ability. SC2 is way more complicated to play. I didn't say SC BW is easier to master. Obviously, that game has a much better skill curve for competitive play. But that doesn't matter to 99% of us playing.
We played SC BW for years and we thought it was an easy straightforward game. Yes, we were not very good and playing at 40 apm and barely beating the AI. But the game was easy to play. If we had a new friend joining our LAN we could explai n her the game in about 5 minutes and we would just be playing after that.
On August 08 2019 07:23 Wombat_NI wrote: You are literally describing Brood War, a game I also happen to love incidentally.
This is getting oh so old. Being able to control units more easily and more accurately is not 'just being identical to SC BW'. SC BW has actual bugs that are not helpful. But SC2 has more of them.
You’re conflating ‘RTS fundamentals’ (whatever that means) with ‘stuff I like in Brood War’ Scarabs bugging is one thing, it’s far far from the only thing that is not intuitive at all in that game.
I never said that scarabs behaving the way they do is a good thing. But it is not a bug and certainly not random. If it is desirable or not is up to debate.
Plenty of this adds to the game sure, what new player isolated from previous knowledge can hope to figure such things out?
SC2 is less intuitive. If you are new to SC2 and you try to micro your units, you will make it worse. If you are new to SC BW and you try to micro your units, you are improving the performance of your units.
As far as I’m aware there is nothing in SC2’s engine that precludes doing certain things like moving shot etc anyway, it’s a matter of how the engine prioritises certain things over others.
You didn't watch the video. They hard coded all these things into the engine which are engineering marvels but completely antithetical to RTS. And all SC2 players do is complain their race was nerfed in the large balance patch. The latency SC2 had during beta and initial release is another example. They never had people in the room and sit 'let's make the best engine for RTS possible. What qualities make an engine a good RTS engine?' because that required a completely upside down way of thinking compared to WoW. When Blizzard started developing SC2, they had almost no RTS knowledge in-house. And this shows in the engine.
SC2 for all its faults has by far the best pathing of any RTS I’ve ever played, which probably means its engine is pretty damn good as a baseline to build an RTS. It’s very consistent and predictable, even with the clumping (that I don’t really like personally).
I mean by all means prefer a game or not, to claim BW is easier to play than SC2 is preposterous though.
Why? SC BW is way easier and intuitive to understand. In SC2, units have a mind of their own. The rules that govern unit behavior in SC2 are way more complex than in SC BW. Exactly because the UI tries to be more powerful. On top of that, the core game itself is also more complicated. Blizzard added 'macro mechanics' to make the game more 'difficult', which makes no sense and makes the game more difficult that it ought to be. There are more units and most units have a special ability. SC2 is way more complicated to play. I didn't say SC BW is easier to master. Obviously, that game has a much better skill curve for competitive play. But that doesn't matter to 99% of us playing.
We played SC BW for years and we thought it was an easy straightforward game. Yes, we were not very good and playing at 40 apm and barely beating the AI. But the game was easy to play. If we had a new friend joining our LAN we could explai n her the game in about 5 minutes and we would just be playing after that.
I’ve watched the video, agreed with many of the points within.
You seem to be conflating being intuitive with your own personal preferences. Macro mechanics are perfectly intuitive, x does y, use it as you see fit. A game can be incredibly complex but each of the individual elements within be intuitive by themselves, which is basically SC2.
Bad pathing and a bunch of engine exploits are not intuitive at all. Having to sit down and learn FFE layouts per map and spawn position is not especially intuitive.
Mario is as simple a game there is, but there’s a crazy amount of stuff people have figured out in the speed running community. It’s a very simple game to play casually, not intuitive at all to play competitively, which is Brood War in a nutshell.
Sticking in a latency cap isn’t a flaw in the engine at all, neither is a lot of the other stuff. They’re decisions made for various reasons, one can agree or disagree on those decisions but they’re not inherent engine flaws.
I fight the UI way more in BW or WC3 (which is probably my favourite game ever) than I do in SC2. In WC3 for example if I’m trying to go through a narrow space with a bunch of units, the pathing will predict the space being filled and send units around the passage to meet at the other side, which oft results in either losing the units that do, or having to box sections of my force and force them through in smaller groups.
I don’t really understand your posting motivation, it’s either saying we’re all plebs for finding a limited Alphastar on the ladder interesting or posting that SC2 is completely fucked in an SC2 balance thread.
Don't know what you mean. First of all, the SC2 engine is completely bugged. It doesn't allow the user to control the units. It would be a good engine for an RPG, not for an MOBA, and certainly not for an RTS. This was demonstrated by LaLush (and many other before him) in https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro The SC2 engine was engineered to be fundamentally unsuitable for an RTS game. Why did this happen? Because while the engineers did a hell of a job in putting in all these features that seem like a good idea to a non-RTS player, and it is a technical marvel that it all works, in the end the SC2 developers had zero affinity with RTS games.
Second, reavers and balance; the thing patched about reavers was that they used to shoot their scarabs instantly after being unloaded. This made reavers overpowered and broke the game.
You say SC BW is not balanced because reaver scarabs randomly deal no damage, and that this is a bug. First of all, if reavers dealt no damage it wouldn't unbalance the game. If reavers are too weak to use, protoss players simply build their other units. Yes, it will be one less thing to defend against. But that's about it. Now, if scarabs always did full damage all around it when it fails to find it's target, that would make reavers a lot stronger. An overpowered unit breaks balance. Not a weak unit. Scouts are weak units. Scouts don't break the balance of the game.
And lastly, it is factually incorrect that reavers randomly deal zero damage. They deal no damage if it cannot hit it's target. And this is not random. It is up to you if you can this a 'bug' or a 'feature'. To me, SC2 units responding as if they are moving through some very viscous fluid is a bug. To you it is a feature. SC2 units trying to occupy a single spot and them all swarming around that spot and rearranging themselves without receiving any others to do so to minimize their distance to that spot, to me that's a bug. To you it may be a feature.
But nothing about reavers make SC BW unbalanced, broken, or boring. SC2 on the other hand, these 'features make the game not enjoyable to play, because it feels like you are fighting the interface rather than playing the game, and the clumping of the units make positioning of units in battles something that only plays a role at the highest level of play. This in contrast to SC BW, which is much easier to play, and allows even low level players to control their units and get benefit from it.
Agree. SC2 is simply a bad game, why does it cost people to admit this? perhaps because they are players of the new generation accustomed to the shit that large companies produce and perhaps also because SC2 hasn't had competition since no other relevant RTS has been made in the last eight years.
Don't know what you mean. First of all, the SC2 engine is completely bugged. It doesn't allow the user to control the units. It would be a good engine for an RPG, not for an MOBA, and certainly not for an RTS. This was demonstrated by LaLush (and many other before him) in https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro The SC2 engine was engineered to be fundamentally unsuitable for an RTS game. Why did this happen? Because while the engineers did a hell of a job in putting in all these features that seem like a good idea to a non-RTS player, and it is a technical marvel that it all works, in the end the SC2 developers had zero affinity with RTS games.
Second, reavers and balance; the thing patched about reavers was that they used to shoot their scarabs instantly after being unloaded. This made reavers overpowered and broke the game.
You say SC BW is not balanced because reaver scarabs randomly deal no damage, and that this is a bug. First of all, if reavers dealt no damage it wouldn't unbalance the game. If reavers are too weak to use, protoss players simply build their other units. Yes, it will be one less thing to defend against. But that's about it. Now, if scarabs always did full damage all around it when it fails to find it's target, that would make reavers a lot stronger. An overpowered unit breaks balance. Not a weak unit. Scouts are weak units. Scouts don't break the balance of the game.
And lastly, it is factually incorrect that reavers randomly deal zero damage. They deal no damage if it cannot hit it's target. And this is not random. It is up to you if you can this a 'bug' or a 'feature'. To me, SC2 units responding as if they are moving through some very viscous fluid is a bug. To you it is a feature. SC2 units trying to occupy a single spot and them all swarming around that spot and rearranging themselves without receiving any others to do so to minimize their distance to that spot, to me that's a bug. To you it may be a feature.
But nothing about reavers make SC BW unbalanced, broken, or boring. SC2 on the other hand, these 'features make the game not enjoyable to play, because it feels like you are fighting the interface rather than playing the game, and the clumping of the units make positioning of units in battles something that only plays a role at the highest level of play. This in contrast to SC BW, which is much easier to play, and allows even low level players to control their units and get benefit from it.
Agree. SC2 is simply a bad game, why does it cost people to admit this? perhaps because they are players of the new generation accustomed to the shit that large companies produce and perhaps also because SC2 hasn't had competition since no other relevant RTS has been made in the last eight years.
Interesting forum to voice such an opinion, full of people invested in the game of SC2 and its future direction.
What does it cost to admit SC2 is a good game that’s not to your personal tastes?
Don't know what you mean. First of all, the SC2 engine is completely bugged. It doesn't allow the user to control the units. It would be a good engine for an RPG, not for an MOBA, and certainly not for an RTS. This was demonstrated by LaLush (and many other before him) in https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro The SC2 engine was engineered to be fundamentally unsuitable for an RTS game. Why did this happen? Because while the engineers did a hell of a job in putting in all these features that seem like a good idea to a non-RTS player, and it is a technical marvel that it all works, in the end the SC2 developers had zero affinity with RTS games.
Second, reavers and balance; the thing patched about reavers was that they used to shoot their scarabs instantly after being unloaded. This made reavers overpowered and broke the game.
You say SC BW is not balanced because reaver scarabs randomly deal no damage, and that this is a bug. First of all, if reavers dealt no damage it wouldn't unbalance the game. If reavers are too weak to use, protoss players simply build their other units. Yes, it will be one less thing to defend against. But that's about it. Now, if scarabs always did full damage all around it when it fails to find it's target, that would make reavers a lot stronger. An overpowered unit breaks balance. Not a weak unit. Scouts are weak units. Scouts don't break the balance of the game.
And lastly, it is factually incorrect that reavers randomly deal zero damage. They deal no damage if it cannot hit it's target. And this is not random. It is up to you if you can this a 'bug' or a 'feature'. To me, SC2 units responding as if they are moving through some very viscous fluid is a bug. To you it is a feature. SC2 units trying to occupy a single spot and them all swarming around that spot and rearranging themselves without receiving any others to do so to minimize their distance to that spot, to me that's a bug. To you it may be a feature.
But nothing about reavers make SC BW unbalanced, broken, or boring. SC2 on the other hand, these 'features make the game not enjoyable to play, because it feels like you are fighting the interface rather than playing the game, and the clumping of the units make positioning of units in battles something that only plays a role at the highest level of play. This in contrast to SC BW, which is much easier to play, and allows even low level players to control their units and get benefit from it.
Agree. SC2 is simply a bad game, why does it cost people to admit this? perhaps because they are players of the new generation accustomed to the shit that large companies produce and perhaps also because SC2 hasn't had competition since no other relevant RTS has been made in the last eight years.
WHy are you on SC2 forum then? Go to the BW section then... SC2 is way better game than BW, I played BW for hundreds of hours, it has its ups, it has its downs and I really don't want to go back there.
Edit> If you will insist on this debate, we can go into more evil things I can say about BW. It's not just this But you don't see me shitting on BW in the BW section. I generally doesn't want to do it even in the SC2 section as I still like the game, it's just not good by my standards.
On August 08 2019 08:44 deacon.frost wrote: WHy are you on SC2 forum then? Go to the BW section then... SC2 is way better game than BW, I played BW for hundreds of hours, it has its ups, it has its downs and I really don't want to go back there.
Edit> If you will insist on this debate, we can go into more evil things I can say about BW. It's not just this But you don't see me shitting on BW in the BW section. I generally doesn't want to do it even in the SC2 section as I still like the game, it's just not good by my standards.
Someone else started to randomly attack SC BW. All I see here is people hating on Blizzard for nerfing their race. It is fucking stupid. Blizzard has been buffing and nerfing your race for years now. Where does it lead?
Mario is as simple a game there is, but there’s a crazy amount of stuff people have figured out in the speed running community. It’s a very simple game to play casually, not intuitive at all to play competitively, which is Brood War in a nutshell.
Starcraft is a simple game to learn and a hard game to master. It is intuitive to play on a casual level, but yes on a competitive level all these new details emerge. SC2 is the opposite. It is a very complicated game to get into and learn. But once you have learned the basics, you just have to learn to do what you already know more flawlessly; it is hard to learn, easy to master.
Now, maybe this is my personal opinion and everyone where just prefers a game that is hard to learn, easy to master. But I don't and I remember a time when almost no one here did. I guess the fact that this has no changed, that people want a hard to learn game and that people are ok with the fact that their units have minds of their own and respond as if they are moving through go when you give them a command is exactly the selection enforced by SC2. People that post here generally still play. And if they didn't like what SC2 is, they wouldn't be playing or posting.
There is a solution to balancing the game. It is to stop changing unit stats and to balance through maps. There is a solution to too much A move attack. It is to limit the number of units you can select in a single control group. When Starcraft was released in 1996, all competitors had unlimited unit selection. Blizzard specifically put in a cap to solve the problem I now see several people describing august 2019.
On August 08 2019 08:44 deacon.frost wrote: WHy are you on SC2 forum then? Go to the BW section then... SC2 is way better game than BW, I played BW for hundreds of hours, it has its ups, it has its downs and I really don't want to go back there.
Edit> If you will insist on this debate, we can go into more evil things I can say about BW. It's not just this But you don't see me shitting on BW in the BW section. I generally doesn't want to do it even in the SC2 section as I still like the game, it's just not good by my standards.
Someone else started to randomly attack SC BW. All I see here is people hating on Blizzard for nerfing their race. It is fucking stupid. Blizzard has been buffing and nerfing your race for years now. Where does it lead?
Mario is as simple a game there is, but there’s a crazy amount of stuff people have figured out in the speed running community. It’s a very simple game to play casually, not intuitive at all to play competitively, which is Brood War in a nutshell.
Starcraft is a simple game to learn and a hard game to master. It is intuitive to play on a casual level, but yes on a competitive level all these new details emerge. SC2 is the opposite. It is a very complicated game to get into and learn. But once you have learned the basics, you just have to learn to do what you already know more flawlessly; it is hard to learn, easy to master.
Now, maybe this is my personal opinion and everyone where just prefers a game that is hard to learn, easy to master. But I don't and I remember a time when almost no one here did. I guess the fact that this has no changed, that people want a hard to learn game and that people are ok with the fact that their units have minds of their own and respond as if they are moving through go when you give them a command is exactly the selection enforced by SC2. People that post here generally still play. And if they didn't like what SC2 is, they wouldn't be playing or posting.
There is a solution to balancing the game. It is to stop changing unit stats and to balance through maps. There is a solution to too much A move attack. It is to limit the number of units you can select in a single control group. When Starcraft was released in 1996, all competitors had unlimited unit selection. Blizzard specifically put in a cap to solve the problem I now see several people describing august 2019.
How is it complicated to learn? You keep just reiterating this point, things generally do what they’re supposed to do, the information is there, much of it in game via the campaign through how they introduce units. Other stuff you can observe and figure out pretty easily from watching tournaments never mind streams.
VS BW which to nowadays play 1v1 ranked to any kind of standard there’s a ton of completely unintuitive elements that you have to grind and learn, because without them you’ll just get pumped.
Both are simple and fine to enjoy casually, as many of us did with BW back in the day.
Did Blizzard specifically put in that cap in 1996 for that reason? I’ve never heard anyone who worked on the game say that,or anything to the contrary either.
Considering nobody has yet mastered SC2 in nearly a decade I’d also query the second part of your ‘hard to learn easy to master’.
On August 08 2019 08:44 deacon.frost wrote: WHy are you on SC2 forum then? Go to the BW section then... SC2 is way better game than BW, I played BW for hundreds of hours, it has its ups, it has its downs and I really don't want to go back there.
Edit> If you will insist on this debate, we can go into more evil things I can say about BW. It's not just this But you don't see me shitting on BW in the BW section. I generally doesn't want to do it even in the SC2 section as I still like the game, it's just not good by my standards.
Someone else started to randomly attack SC BW. All I see here is people hating on Blizzard for nerfing their race. It is fucking stupid. Blizzard has been buffing and nerfing your race for years now. Where does it lead?
It leads to something better than utter Terran dominance and 4/5 bonjwas being a single race like we had in BW
It leads to something better than a game balanced by maps.
SC2, and the balance attempts by Blizzard, aren't perfect. Fact remains that it's still damn good (for us on a SC2 forum), and better than what BW was.
This whole discussion was started by someone comparing SC2 to BW.
I think I speak for vast majority of SC2 fans when I say it is preferred that Blizzard tries to actively balance the game rather than leave it alone like they did for BW. BW being perfectly balanced is a myth. While BW is legendary, it was never balanced and at times the unbalance was absurd. This is coming from someone whose favorite video game of all time is BW
EPT
But you don't see me shitting on BW in the BW section. I generally doesn't want to do it even in the SC2 section as I still like the game, it's just not good by my standards. 
