|
On May 08 2010 11:05 Stopdroproll wrote: Phoenix only hard counter Mutalisks really.
This. Since every air unit aside from the mutalisk outranges the phenix this fancy moving shot is pointless vs them. And do not overlook the fact that sentries have been nerf and one muta now kills one sentry.
|
This is one of the best design decisions so far in SC2. Next they need to extend this mechanic to other units, not necessarily allowing them to fire while moving, but to be able to stop and fire on their own as often as possible while continuing to move toward a chosen destination between shots. They could, for example, easily make this "shoot and move" the meaning of "Patrol", which is a pretty worthless movement command as it stands.
People have got to stop whining about animation cancelling. It's an RTS, not an arcade game. You're supposed to give simple commands to your units, and then they're supposed to carry them out to the limits of their capabilities. They're not supposed to gain new abilities like firing on the move when and only when you're actively controlling them with a high APM.
If nothing else, achieving moving shot through animation cancelling makes the game extremely lag sensitive, which introduces too much inconsistency and luck-factor into internet play.
Starcraft 2 is not Starcraft. It's not about slavishly reproducing the bugs and unanticipated mechanical exploits that dominated Starcraft play and made it effectively a different game than the people at Blizzard intended to construct. It's a modern game for the modern market.
The competitive Starcraft scene showed us a much better, more exciting, more dynamic game than the way Starcraft plays at low skill levels. If Blizzard is smart, they're trying to enable that kind of gameplay for low-skilled players, rather than keeping casual players so bogged down by the mechanics of accomplishing simple things that they have no attention to spare for things like strategy.
Fun and interesting skill are not about mindless click chores to accomplish things that the game could do fine without arbitrarily requiring you to press buttons. Nobody is impressed by your ability to alternately press two buttons. Somebody who invests his time in developing such chores to the level of automatic reflex is naturally going to be looked down on as a nerd, which is the real reason for the general failure of e-sports to be taken seriously when things like competitive chess and even poker are respected: most of the "skill" involved is purely mechanical (not in an admirable athletic way, but in operating what is basically mundane office equipment), and it's a little sad that anyone would invest their time in developing it.
E-sports are going to remain a laughable little niche until some games come out where victory is based on abilities that people can actually respect, with no ridiculous prerequisites such as having the carpal-tunnel resistance of a teenage boy. "Mouse athletics" impress no one.
Games need efficient interfaces, not deliberately inefficient ones, or the skill requirements become so arbitrary and artificial that nobody will respect them.
This is a step in the right direction for Starcraft 2, and for the future of e-sports.
|
Yo i dont know where you come from but actually alot of very good poker players now came from sc:bw. Thinking while having a high apm and a very high awareness and feel is exactly what you need in bw and poker. If sc2 comes anywhere close to poker or bw it would be pretty good.
|
People have got to stop whining about animation cancelling. It's an RTS, not an arcade game. You're supposed to give simple commands to your units, and then they're supposed to carry them out to the limits of their capabilities. They're not supposed to gain new abilities like firing on the move when and only when you're actively controlling them with a high APM.
Maybe we can program an IA and look at it play play the game instead of us.
|
I also like the new phoenix change.
I would rather have top players spend their APM on executing multiple strategic maneuvers simultaneously (i.e. controlling more armies while macroing new ones) than on exploiting micro-intensive BW-style engine bugs.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 09 2010 02:14 deadalnix wrote:Show nested quote +People have got to stop whining about animation cancelling. It's an RTS, not an arcade game. You're supposed to give simple commands to your units, and then they're supposed to carry them out to the limits of their capabilities. They're not supposed to gain new abilities like firing on the move when and only when you're actively controlling them with a high APM. Maybe we can program an IA and look at it play play the game instead of us. Why do people always insist on using bad slippery slope arguments on both sides of this discussion?
|
After this last change I won't be buying the release.
|
On May 09 2010 05:46 BanelingXD wrote: After this last change I won't be buying the release.
rofl.. youll be missed.
|
How does corruptor manage against the phoenix now?
|
On May 09 2010 00:22 TheDna wrote: Yo i dont know where you come from but actually alot of very good poker players now came from sc:bw. Thinking while having a high apm and a very high awareness and feel is exactly what you need in bw and poker. If sc2 comes anywhere close to poker or bw it would be pretty good.
There are many reasons to explain that, one of which could be that those players invested too much on gaming, didn't take a degree in something usefull and are now bound to make money somehow. Gaming is totally useless for work purposes. People that were playing 8 h per day when they should be studying will have a harder time than your average young adult when their parents' money stops coming in.
|
On May 08 2010 23:01 Funchucks wrote: ... I'm not so sure whether a game like StarCraft can sport the depth to make up for the changes to advocate, Funchucks. Really, the question is: Can there be a diversity in valuable strategies when mechanical skill as a factor ceases to exist? And then: Will that strategies be something we adore; do we associate the crazy micro we see going on on the screen with the players or will we not care if units do it by themselves?
Point being, StarCraft is units shooting at units. In chess or poker, you can win even if your "firepower" is inferior. Should or is this in StarCraft being achieved by micro or by things like "strategy"? That it should be achieved, is something we can all certainly agree on.
In Sc1, balance between builds is being achieved by the skill it takes to execute them well. Should 9pool always just beat 12hatch because that way, "strategy" is rewarded, or should Jaedong be able to micro his Zerglings better than anyone else and still come out victorious? Would Sair/Rvr see play in every game if it wouldn't be so damn hard to pull off? 2fac does rarely see play in Korean leagues these days, because it's a "bad strategical decision". Yet sometimes, someone will go for it because of the mindgames involved and because he thinks that he has got the micro to pull it off. Is this a good or a bad thing? Should he always lose, because he made a bad strategical decision?
I'm not sure on this, which is where all the question marks come from. To me, it seems questionable, whether something as complex yet as simple as a video game could make players shine without requiring mechanics. Bear in mind, all the "strategic games" you mentioned are turn based and (therefor) differ from StarCraft significantly. To me, it seems like the analogy between chess and a small scale micro battle is the better analogy than that between chess and a full match of StarCraft.
|
Which one between mi/acroing and strategy should be more rewarded is debatable. My opinion is this. As funchuck said being a good strategist is much more respected than a good microer. Micro is almost only practice. There's much less thinking involved. What's the point of being able to kill x units with only y? grats you are a fast mouser. Might as well go on a contest to see who has the fastest reaction time and call it a day. Though I hardly find impressive something you could put a monkey do 10x better/faster.
On the other hand, being able to create smart strategies, use the units wisely with good timing, flank the opponent, knowing to adapt a strategy according to the opponent and create a new one on the fly, attack on more fronts with small numbers, hide units, manipulate what the oponent thinks you're doing, etc and that, for me, is much more impressive.
|
On May 08 2010 23:01 Funchucks wrote: This is one of the best design decisions so far in SC2. Next they need to extend this mechanic to other units, not necessarily allowing them to fire while moving, but to be able to stop and fire on their own as often as possible while continuing to move toward a chosen destination between shots. They could, for example, easily make this "shoot and move" the meaning of "Patrol", which is a pretty worthless movement command as it stands.
People have got to stop whining about animation cancelling. It's an RTS, not an arcade game. You're supposed to give simple commands to your units, and then they're supposed to carry them out to the limits of their capabilities. They're not supposed to gain new abilities like firing on the move when and only when you're actively controlling them with a high APM.
If nothing else, achieving moving shot through animation cancelling makes the game extremely lag sensitive, which introduces too much inconsistency and luck-factor into internet play.
Starcraft 2 is not Starcraft. It's not about slavishly reproducing the bugs and unanticipated mechanical exploits that dominated Starcraft play and made it effectively a different game than the people at Blizzard intended to construct. It's a modern game for the modern market.
The competitive Starcraft scene showed us a much better, more exciting, more dynamic game than the way Starcraft plays at low skill levels. If Blizzard is smart, they're trying to enable that kind of gameplay for low-skilled players, rather than keeping casual players so bogged down by the mechanics of accomplishing simple things that they have no attention to spare for things like strategy.
Fun and interesting skill are not about mindless click chores to accomplish things that the game could do fine without arbitrarily requiring you to press buttons. Nobody is impressed by your ability to alternately press two buttons. Somebody who invests his time in developing such chores to the level of automatic reflex is naturally going to be looked down on as a nerd, which is the real reason for the general failure of e-sports to be taken seriously when things like competitive chess and even poker are respected: most of the "skill" involved is purely mechanical (not in an admirable athletic way, but in operating what is basically mundane office equipment), and it's a little sad that anyone would invest their time in developing it.
E-sports are going to remain a laughable little niche until some games come out where victory is based on abilities that people can actually respect, with no ridiculous prerequisites such as having the carpal-tunnel resistance of a teenage boy. "Mouse athletics" impress no one.
Games need efficient interfaces, not deliberately inefficient ones, or the skill requirements become so arbitrary and artificial that nobody will respect them.
This is a step in the right direction for Starcraft 2, and for the future of e-sports.
Quality Post.
And as mentioned a thousand times, Sc 2 is different and it HAS TO BE different to Sc 1. Oh they removed the classical moving shot? Whatever, then people find new ways to freak about. You still have to micro, pick red units to the back, use all the abilities.
Starcraft 2 is still in the beta status. Was sc 1 SO MUCH BETTER in its better status back then? You are at the end of a 10 year old game with expansion packs, so ofc it's perfectly balanced. Balance takes time and much consideration. So ridiculous when the kiddies begin crying after each little change or when they say sc 2 will never be an e-sports game.
(Besides who gives a fuck about e-sports? Check any serious gamer who was in a good league for ~ 2-3 years, nearly all of them retired. You cannot keep up such a high level forever. And in the end you wasted a ton of time for nothing but a "name" in the kiddie scene, that will be forgotton 2 years later. gj :D)
|
On May 09 2010 06:08 Sandrosuperstar wrote: How does corruptor manage against the phoenix now? They rape them even harder..
I like the phoenix change..Instead of just a moving you have something else against mutas and in my games and tests it doesnt make as big difference as it seemed.. Many mutas vs many phoenix you may lose fewer than before with more micro..but its not as godly as corsair would be..
But vs everything else its still better to a move and stay in a fight because they have 4 range and if you dance your phoenixes those in the back wont shoot but you will still be shot by longer range units.. So this is just a buff against mutas but nothing else.. but its a cool change..makes it more responsive and fun..
|
On May 08 2010 13:30 PJA wrote: People need to chill out about how this is destroying micro or doesn't require micro, etc. etc. It's a new ability that a unit can have, deal with it. If phoenix are OP they can always nerf the range or damage or whatever, but I doubt it will be necessary.
EDIT: Also, I doubt that blizzard misunderstood what people meant by moving shot. More likely they just thought that giving the phoenix its moving shot would be a cool addition to the game, and perhaps the idea was inspired by people talking about "moving shot."
More like this is adding micro.. Before you engaged and watched the fight.. now you can really do something with them.. If they gave them splash instead that would be less micro..
|
On May 08 2010 23:01 Funchucks wrote: E-sports are going to remain a laughable little niche until some games come out where victory is based on abilities that people can actually respect, with no ridiculous prerequisites such as having the carpal-tunnel resistance of a teenage boy. "Mouse athletics" impress no one.
What people respect and what they don't respect is constantly changing. Poker certainly wasn't respected at first. Do you know how much the acceptable fashion has changed?
And why should athletic skills be respected more than any other skill? This mindset is from way in the past.
|
There are many reasons to explain that, one of which could be that those players invested too much on gaming, didn't take a degree in something usefull and are now bound to make money somehow. Gaming is totally useless for work purposes. People that were playing 8 h per day when they should be studying will have a harder time than your average young adult when their parents' money stops coming in.
This quote is hilarious. So much hate towards anyone not doing the "right" thing which apparently is studying. You should relax a bit, and not be as angry at people who succeed by doing something you perceive as easy.
Poker is incredibly popular, so claiming that people who were good in Starcraft start playing Poker and succeed at it because they are unable to succeed at anything else makes no sense.
|
|
|
|