EPTDo We Want the Game Harder? - Page 24
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ElemUnit
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On January 24 2012 13:49 Peleus wrote: For example - mineral boosting. This trick was discovered early in sc2, allowing high APM players a slight advantage by makin their workers mine more efficiently adding the return cargo command into the mix. It had zero effect on casual players who could still mine normally if they wished and added a further layer for the better players to get ahead in the early game. Yet this was removed by blizzard, even though it's almost the perfect type mechanic to have in sc2. You can see it as a 'trick' or you can see it as a bug. As a mid-masters player who had the APM available to do the return cargo trick for the first 4-5 minutes of each game, I saw it as super annoying. It's not impressive to watch or interesting to do, and doesn't really add any depth to the game. I'm glad Blizzard gets rid of such bugs. Phoenix's for a while wouldn't disengage the graviton beam after the unit they were carrying died, making it so Protoss had to cancel the graviton beam manually. Sure, this adds arbitrary APM usage to the game, but it's really a bug, and was rightfully removed. I think Blizzard made the right calls when eliminating bugs that were unintended and don't add to the game. | ||
|
Ydriel
Italy516 Posts
Now, introducing some micro intensive units in the following expansions might be a good and efficient way to increase the skill cap in SC2, and I hope they do that. Strategy wise, I think what SC2 needs is just time. | ||
|
Greendotz
United Kingdom2053 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:10 ampson wrote: When some random code B player beats MVP in a BO5 you can tell me that the skillcap is too low. What a ridiculous nonsensical throw-away comment. You say that as if code B players are scrubs who are shit at Starcraft. MC, who was at a time considered the best SC2 player in the world by some, quickly fell into code B shortly after his great success. The fact that MVP doesn’t insta-win every game with 100% win rate to every player outside of code S is not solid grounds to claim the skill cap is too low. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
| ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: All please read: this thread was supposed to be arguing the fact that it is the ease of the game that draws the large crowds, and without it it would be a game for the minority, not the masses. It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread. What I'm trying to say is that because BW was so hard, it was very limited to who could actually play the game, but because SC2 is easier many more people can play and that is a big reason why it has shown popularity in the west like it has I disagree. BW wasn't as popular (in the foreign scene) because few took RTS as seriously (during its early years that is) as now. Thanks to BW developing eSports for the RTS genre, SC2 (it being a hyped up sequel helps) flourished well. Basically I think if SC2 had BW mechanics, the game would have been probably the same in terms of popularity. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
So what do you want? Do you want a game that has an intergrated difficulty or one that sweeps these discrepancies in order to ensure that the person with the better overall strategy or basis of strategy overcomes his opponent. this is ignoring, of course, that the game isn't balanced entirely or favours one race over another. Additionally, the higher the skill ceiling, the less convenient the game is and the less people can relate to it and thus perhaps why MW3 is appealing than Quake Live similar to HoN and LoL (though, S2 shot themselves in the foot). | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10290 Posts
| ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
On January 24 2012 15:08 Goldfish wrote: I disagree. BW wasn't as popular (in the foreign scene) because few took RTS as seriously (during its early years that is) as now. Thanks to BW developing eSports for the RTS genre, SC2 (it being a hyped up sequel helps) flourished well. Basically I think if SC2 had BW mechanics, the game would have been probably the same in terms of popularity. Well im not too sure, i think that if it did have BW mechanics we would most likely see a smaller player base over a larger period of time just due to the difficulty. But we will never know i guess... | ||
|
Millard
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
Onlinejaguar
Australia2823 Posts
| ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16011 Posts
On January 24 2012 15:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: The skill ceiling should rise, but it should not be harder to get into. And it most definitely will rise as the game gets figured out more and new and better upcoming players join the scene. Agreed. To compare the skill ceiling between a game that's not even two years old to one that's over 10 years old is not fair. Let the metagame develop and let the pros continue to push the limit until we see a REAL skill ceiling and then we can start making comparisons. | ||
|
Satire
Canada295 Posts
The APM it takes to micromanage macro related things will eventually go into micro-managing armies. It will eventually lead into more action, and the game will stabilize a great deal. Multi-pronged attacks are already becoming more and more common in match-ups. The biggest problems right now with those "suprise" wins is likely scouting. That is one area the game could improve upon. With that said, when I'm watching a game of BW or SC2. I don't really care about the macro aspect - do you? The tedious things that gamers do to have solid macro mechanics are fantastic and deserve respect, but they aren't flashy, and they aren't why most people watch the game. We want to see action. Eleviating stress on macro and improving game play features, will eventually transfer over to more micro. Do you see people commenting "dude, that guy has sick timing on all his buildings" or "I can't believe he managed to hold that off with the units he has!". What's more exciting? The skill ceiling of SC2 is still unknown. In fact, I very much doubt there is one. That's what rules about RTS games - they constantly evolve. While BW mechanics are very difficult, people master them and it becomes second nature at some point. That doesn't produce more interesting games to watch, or an interesting game to play for those who like to play casually. Also to maintain your mechanics is very difficult. I play 3 games a month because of University, and when the game was first released I played a lot. I was high level diamond playing 2000+ players and winning 66% of my games. My APM peaked around 110, and with the new system it peaks around 80. I'm a macro orientated player with solid mechanics because I played an RTS competatively prior to this (Dune 2000 - won lots of stuff). That game was even harder than BW mechanics by a long shot, but that doesn't make it a better game either. You needed an absolutely absurb amount of APM to keep your macro flawless in that game, but it's still not a better game because of it. Macro is only one part of the game though, and now I am mid-to-high diamond. I don't know any timings nor build orders that aren't outdated. Many of the people I practiced with are GM or rank 1 masters now. This just goes to show how much the game has evolved in just over a year. There is a lot more to look at with mechanics then just crisp economy management. I like the adjustments they've made to be honest. I think making the game less tedious in terms of macro, will make it more tedious in terms of micro. Give it more time. | ||
|
Onlinejaguar
Australia2823 Posts
On January 24 2012 15:42 Chaggi wrote: I'm fine with the difficulty now, but I'd like to see it get harder at the highest levels, tricks that you can do, and corners you can cut with good micro. Like say a marine timing without tanks and just really really good micro, something like that. I have seen MKP do a marine timing before, cant remember exactly when it was but it was recent and he just straight up owned his opponent. | ||
|
farside604
Canada127 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On January 24 2012 06:59 sereniity wrote: The reason that the Code S winners MVP, NesTea, MC etc don't win as much as the BW top does (Flash, Jaedong etc) is pretty simple. The BW pros are playing a game where every build is figured out, they've had enough time to practice the game to be near the absolute skillcap, they barely have any holes in their play. The SC2 pros are playing a game where not nearly every build nor playstyle has been figured out, they haven't had enough time with the game to actually reach anywhere near the skillcap nor tighten up every hole in their gameplay. You constantly see new cheese builds coming from the top, new macro openings and the such which can make even top players lose due to them not knowing the existence of that build. Once everything like that is figured out in SC2 and the top pros have spent enough time mastering Marine Macro, triple pronged drops and not losing to something as silly as a ling runby while their depot isn't up then you'll see those top players winning consistently vs lesser opponents. The fact that people expect the very top of the SC2 players to win every single game surprises me, this game is still relatively new and there's alot of things that can still catch the top players off-guard, this isn't because of bad game-design, it's because shit needs to get figured out and pros needs to get better. Please don't tell me MVP, NesTea and MC have reached the skillcap of SC2. They're damn good but I still see bad marine splitting from MVP time to time (and by bad I mean not perfect as it should be at that lvl). I still see NesTea making bad decisions and not microing perfectly (almost every pro sacrifices their infestors mindlessly every time they try to fungal for example) and I still see MC simply not playing at his best from time to time. The fact that people point fingers at the GAME SC2 rather than it's players is funny though... Does this game need to get harder? No, not really. The level it is right now is fine imo, give it time and we'll see how it plays out in a year. You know, that "BW players had 10 years to figure out..." comment actually means that before BW (and competitive RTS) took hold in Korea, the concepts of macro, micro, timings, expansions and how they affect the game, strategy and army movement etc. weren't known at all. It was built from nothing. That's why Boxer, even in its top form, won't take a game off current game's monsters like Flash. So SC2 is already built on these concepts so its improvement has been much faster. I'm sorry but I'm following a lot more BW compared to SC2 nowadays and I'm noticing that there are inherent problems with how WOL works. Due to MBS and ease of macro, it is impossible to come back if you lose the main deathball battle. The clumping mechanic and smarter unit ai means a lot more firepower available, and splash damage is all the deal in big battles. Units just die too damn fast before you can do anything (and sometimes you literallly cannot do anything, force fields and fungals) Smartcast removes the skill of good caster use (carpet storms and carpet emps with a few clicks). There are many very poorly designed units that are just a-move (colossus,roach,marauder) Interesting units like Reaver which require and reward good control are absent. Sentry and Blink Stalkers are really the only units that reward good control through forcefield usage and blink micro. Battles end far too quickly to allow an efficient retreat or micro that makes a big difference. There are subtle but really nice ways in how BW units function. Take Reaver. It hits like a freight train (100 unupgraded and 125 upgraded damage) and with a splash. Yet it is probably the slowest unit in the entire game, so you cannot just take it, a-move and cross your fingers. You need a fast way to transport it to the battle, and Shuttle provides that. Shuttle is fast, but it is prone to be sniped by your enemy, so you need to control it well, because if you fail, you not only lose it but also the precious Reaver inside. Plus the lost opportunity for harrassment and extra firepower for your army. You can take a deathball with Colossi and Stalkers with a few sentries and just a-move across the map, and the only thing you need to do is good forcefields that honestly aren't that hard to execute, and protecting your Colossii, which the stalkers can take care of. But this isn't an interesting interaction between these units, it is just basic stuff, a unit covering another. A Shuttle brings a whole new depth into how you can use a Reaver. SC2 lacks that interaction. A Colossi harrass does nothing but make your opponent laugh, its whole function is to provide firepower in a major engagement. Warp Prism could be interesting if Warp-in mechanic was exclusive only to Warp Prism's energy area but due to Pylons giving the same effect, they aren't as interesting as they could be. Still, it's a great idea and it deserves an applaud, but it could have been much better. Get this: There isn't much more if anything left to figure out in WOL. HOTS will bring its own dynamics and then there will be a period of learning, just like it happened last year with WOL. But for WOL, the progress is pretty much over unless Blizzard introduces a major change through a patch. I personally honestly believe the biggest problem of WOL is how Protoss is designed. TvZ being arguably the best matchup in the game closely followed by TvT shows this clearly. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
Riquiz
Netherlands401 Posts
I'd like to see SC2 gradually get harder, just for the sake of skill being the most important thing, not hiding your tech or w/e. | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38797 Posts
| ||
| ||
