|
I really just want two things:
1. Effective zoning, that doesn't require your entire army.
2. Army interaction (battles) being more than two effective bean bag chairs being thrown at eachother. Sure there's a few units to micro here and there (spells), but in reality they serve to cancel eachother out generally, and more micro won't remotely carry a battle as much as just...having more stuff than the other guy; in effect all battles boil down to who has more shit (and to a degree, who fucked up and stood in a storm). I wish you could have some units and out micro a lot of units and then come out on top, or at least even. Currently that really just doesn't happen.
|
On January 26 2012 04:06 longtang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:04 mo0 wrote:
I wonder what effect rasing the unit cap to something like 300 would have. ur computer would lag. that is what
Back in the days we had a Supply cap of 50 (AoE 1)
|
On January 25 2012 05:43 Blacklizard wrote:
Need micro/unit control more rewarding please.
Then play Terran xD. No but seriously, I just think not all the micro tricks have been figured out for protoss in sc2 but if you're a zerg player then I agree, more micro is needed for that race.
|
On January 26 2012 04:06 longtang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:04 mo0 wrote:
I wonder what effect rasing the unit cap to something like 300 would have. ur computer would lag. that is what
Not if you have a decent setup
|
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote:
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
The vast majority of people that play the game can't play for 12 hours per day like pros. If features like that were kept from BW into Sc2, this game would be no where near as popular as it is not. Personally the difficulty doesn't give me much problem, it's more memory for me.
|
idk how people can say this game is too easy. It is sooo fast and the units are sooo good that you can lose the game in a matter of seconds. Just look to the ling bane wars of ZvZ, or the clutch ff's in a forge fast expand defense, or defending against terran multi-pronged drops, only someone who has never tried to do these things could call them too easy.
As for deathball play, i feel that we are starting to get out of the standard a-move style and into more micro intensive engagements like emp/templar standoffs, and zerg flanks as people are getting better. We can also hope that as players become more strategic with counterattacks we will see the days of box everything and go fade, and have a game more focused on map position and tactical attacks.
|
On January 26 2012 04:18 ODKStevez wrote:
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Ok, if people cannot understand why automining was added and why Blizzard would never relase a game without it, I am at a loss. SC2 is a mass market, multi million dollar game, they cannot release it and have it appears significantly dated. People on TL need to remember that the majority(like everyone I know) of SC2 owners never play 1v1. I understand people want the game to be difficult, but they have to understand that this is a mass market game. It is not like there are not things that players can do to make their mining more efficent in SC2. The AI is not perfect and a player can make sure the works are mining more efficently through micro.
|
The game is what the game is what the game is. It's only going to be as hard as people make it. If you beat people by a-clicking, it's not the game's fault, it's your opponent's for not playing better. The best player will micro every unit perfectly, have perfect timing, perfect macro, awesome multitasking etc. If you aren't doing everything perfectly, you aren't doing all you can and the game is still hard. The devil is in the details----
|
On January 26 2012 04:08 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:06 longtang wrote:On January 26 2012 04:04 mo0 wrote:
I wonder what effect rasing the unit cap to something like 300 would have. ur computer would lag. that is what Back in the days we had a Supply cap of 50 (AoE 1)
Everything cost 1 food in AoE if I remember correctly.
AoE2 was the shit.
|
On January 26 2012 05:27 Condor Hero wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:08 Blasterion wrote:On January 26 2012 04:06 longtang wrote:On January 26 2012 04:04 mo0 wrote:
I wonder what effect rasing the unit cap to something like 300 would have. ur computer would lag. that is what Back in the days we had a Supply cap of 50 (AoE 1) Everything cost 1 food in AoE if I remember correctly. AoE2 was the shit.
Yes everything costs 1 food a still do in AoE2.5 (which I followed up to)
|
On January 26 2012 04:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:18 ODKStevez wrote:
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it. Ok, if people cannot understand why automining was added and why Blizzard would never relase a game without it, I am at a loss. SC2 is a mass market, multi million dollar game, they cannot release it and have it appears significantly dated. People on TL need to remember that the majority(like everyone I know) of SC2 owners never play 1v1. I understand people want the game to be difficult, but they have to understand that this is a mass market game. It is not like there are not things that players can do to make their mining more efficent in SC2. The AI is not perfect and a player can make sure the works are mining more efficently through micro.
Agreed, but I'd like to add (as others pointed out in this thread) that despite the UI improvements implemented in SC2, the skill ceiling has not been reached. In fact, it's not even close to being reached! So there is no point intentionally making SC2 harder mechanically. It doesn't get us anything in the pro-scene.
Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
|
On January 26 2012 04:09 Neurosis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:43 Blacklizard wrote:
Need micro/unit control more rewarding please. Then play Terran xD. No but seriously, I just think not all the micro tricks have been figured out for protoss in sc2 but if you're a zerg player then I agree, more micro is needed for that race.
All the races need more micro control potential, but especially zerg.
|
On January 27 2012 03:09 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:09 Neurosis wrote:On January 25 2012 05:43 Blacklizard wrote:
Need micro/unit control more rewarding please. Then play Terran xD. No but seriously, I just think not all the micro tricks have been figured out for protoss in sc2 but if you're a zerg player then I agree, more micro is needed for that race. All the races need more micro control potential, but especially zerg.
The problem is Zerg player don't feel the need to do so, even though they are capable to do so.
For example, the roach. There was a hack that automatically burrow the roach when its hp is lower than 50%, Somebody posted a clip of that hack, and when 2 sides clashed, the zerg almost didn't lose anything because burrowed roach doesn't have attack priority, and they got heal real fast. Moreover, because they don't get shot because they don't have priority, they can move underground and get close to the opponents.
The point is, roach is microable, in a way, it's just like stalker maybe even greater, but right now zerg players prefer to ram their roaches into other ball, and it still works fine.
Same case with infestors, Zerg players don't really burrow-move them that much, and keep clumping them up together. Take protoss players for example, some players like Hero spread their HTs, station HTs like a zone control unit, you can do that with infestor too, except infestor is more safer because it has burrow so it doesn't die too fast when we don't pay attention. See, the concept is there, the execution has been done from other races, but Zerg players still prefer to clump up infestors because they are obsessed with the concept "fungal other people to death". How many time you see a HT storm a group of units to death? Almost never, it lowers hp enough so that other units can clean them up.
|
What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there.
[B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a]
Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes.
|
On January 27 2012 04:02 canikizu wrote:
obsessed with the concept "fungal other people to death". How many time you see a HT storm a group of units to death? Almost never, it lowers hp enough so that other units can clean them up.
Because fungal is guaranteed damage and storm is not? Chain fungal is guaranteed kill while storm is avoidable? That's how they are meant to be used. Fungal growth doesn't zone because it's not avoidable, if anything, if your units get fungaled you a+move forward even harder because if even a couple of your units get through, the infestors have to retreat.
|
I think that once people start overcoming the deathball issue by making army splitting a defining part of their play will we see a bigger divide between the pros and the joes. In that scenario, SC2's easier army AI can contribute to this because you can identify the better player by how well split/positioned his army is vs the guy who just wants to be lazy and keep everything clumped in a ball. We're seeing this a bit here and there, so I think it just needs more time to become a regular thing.
|
On January 24 2012 17:40 gn1k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote:
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it. Auto mine totally makes the game more fun. You can focus on making interesting decisions. Instead of doing the same thing 80 times a game. Something that is not a decision. Something you don't think about, you just have to do it. WTF are you talking about? I think the game should have more micro things to make it a little harder. More interesting decisions to make. That's what makes it fun.
This is a valid point. I never thought of it like that. Still I love all the things that SC2 does for me automatically.
|
On January 27 2012 04:41 infinity2k9 wrote:What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there. Show nested quote +[B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a]
Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here. Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes.
So you agree with me? Since "boring a-move" units = game design and not UI...
I'd also add to my point earlier regarding the skill ceiling. Letting players select infinite number of units, thereby creating a ball formation (given the current pathing AI) is not always optimal. Pros have to manually split their army to minimize splash damage or to flank for example. This isn't just microing "slighly better". Army control on this level can deteremine the outcome of games.
|
I think at tournaments there should be a small man in every booth trying to stab the progamers with sharp pointy sticks just to give them an extra apm task to overcome.
|
This isn't the right question to be asking. What we want is "in what other dimension can we distinguish professional players?"
BW's difficult macro mechanics are outdated and should not be put back into any game ever, but they served a purpose by making macro really, really hard. You could have players with better and worse macro, and they could still be pros. You could compensate for worse micro with better macro. There was a complex mix of macro, micro and decision-making that synthesized to some degree into player strength.
For better or for worse, the "macro" part of that mix has mostly dropped out of SC2. Nobody uses mules or injects or chrono boosts perfectly, but the difference between using them adequately and perfectly is small and everyone is adequate to about the same degree. Running someone over with units in SC2 usually comes from winning an engagement decisively and then riding the advantage, as opposed to any macro difference. The converse scenario, where someone would lose an engagement (or even several) and run the opponent over with units anyway, was a not-uncommon occurrence in BW between macro-mismatched players and it happens almost never in SC2.
This is not a bad thing, and it doesn't make BW or SC2 better or worse than each other. It's a natural outflow of making the macro mechanics easier, which is something that needed to happen. I'm a big BW fan and don't play it because it's too hard. I'm also an SC2 fan and I do play it because it's easy.
Okay, so macro's out as a dimension of skill for pros. That leaves micro and decision-making. Still good, still fun to watch, but a little thin, and I think topics like this grow from that realization. So what do we replace macro with? It's telling that most of the suggestions in this thread are "more micro". I can't think of anything better, to be honest, and yet reducing SC2 to a game of whoever has better micro wins seems like a solution that would cut off some of the potential of what SC2 could be.
So that's the real question. Find something that specifically isn't micro or decision-making that players can be differing levels of good at. It's probably going to have be something entirely new to the genre of RTS, but that isn't a bad thing in the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
