|
On April 28 2010 02:25 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 02:11 Garrl wrote:On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post. On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days. I think SC2 just requires a different kind of skill than SC1. Because of the damage-bonus and armour system I think a lot more decision-making has to be done on the fly to determine if your unit composition is capable of taking on your opponent's. Since this air-unit moving shot micro thing isn't a factor, its more important to focus on your macro and get the right army composition in the right place at the right time. Which is a skill in itself. Except there was a HUGE focus on macro, being much harder in BW (that is to say, no MBS, FE builds popular); all the things you stated had more of an emphasis in SC2 were prominent in SC1 and were so much harder, take, for example, macro. In SC1, you'd have about 8-10 barracks, all of them having to be constantly in production, along with constant SCV production. It was much more satisfying and rewarding knowing you could hit f2 and build 8 marines in a second, whereas in SC2 it's just hit the hotkey, aaaaaaaa. Also, you say determining if your unit combination can take on your opponents: isn't that mostly based around luck? You forget scouting for a second, oh look, your opponent had a hidden starport tech, and now has a million billion cloaked banshees in your base. GG. If you're relying on luck to win your battles, you've got a pretty big, fundamental "doing it wrong" problem. Right now I look at a blob of Marauders, look at my own Gateway army and determine, do I: A) Have enough Zealot tanks to survive long enough to keep them off my ranged units? B) Have enough ranged units to kill them quick enough, relative to the number of Zealots I have and Marauders he has. C) Where do I want to fight? Can I use Force Field to swing the fight in my favour by either stopping their ability to kite, or split his army in half? D) Is he teching something else in the meantime and trying to bait me into an Immortal army with all these Marauders? All these questions and decisions go on in my brain before the fight even starts, let alone during it. And the answer to every one is important.
I'm not saying I'm relying on luck, rather, there's no way to alieviate a bad decision (that is to say, with good micro, or fighting on the highground), the hard countering system reinforces that.
|
United States12224 Posts
On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
I disagree with the OP and I've been on this website since day one. It's loaded with suppositions and skewed arguments. The sad thing is that it's so long that it's guaranteed to get showered with praise -- and to some extent rightly so, it took a lot of effort to write. Don't get me wrong, there's nobody that's a bigger fan of clever engine exploitation than me. Coming from a QA background, it's quite entertaining and impressive to see. The idea that we should import all the bugs from BW is anything but a sound one, though, and my earlier posts in the thread describe that further.
|
On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
Interesting that a reasonable objective outlook on sc2 is inversely proportional to post count on these forums. Or are there high post count people who think the article is misguided nostalgic nonsense as well? Can such a relaxed attitude coexist with large e-peens?
Here's a news flash: Sequels are ALWAYS a let-down for die hard fans.
|
On April 28 2010 02:24 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" Antz, can I just say your post is so ubelievably ridiculous it's unreal.
you just did :D
The beta has been out for 2 months now and you're saying we're already reaching the max stratergies we'll ever get?
Never said that, I said (or meant) thats its going to happen MUCH faster then it did for starcraft, because the best players from every game are currently converging on it. SC2 evolution through JUST the beta has been INCREDIBLY fast, if you compare it with SC/BW evolution. Thats why I say, optimal strategies will be found much faster then they were for BW.
No, that's not going to happen for a long time. Also, have people forgotten how bad Starcraft was? Compare SC2 to Starcraft. At the beginning of Starcraft the game was so terrible it was unreal, there was no such thing as macro and most games were over to some form of all in rush every single game, now look at SC2.
See above
There's a dedicated playerbase already playing the game to try and find out the cool tips and tricks but some people just refuse to give it a chance. My post count is low here ish because I generally only come to read, post count doesn't come into this discussion and using it is a complete and utter way out of a tight spot. Some people like you refuse to even give the game a chance to be good, while DeMuslim and various other good players who will more than likely be better than most of us for a long time are playing and enjoying the game for what it is.
Sure, if tricks are discovered such as they were in BW (muta stacking, shit like that) that'd add lots of micro to the game, and depth, and everyones happy! But currently, with the way the units work, a lot of people just dont see that happening, I'm among them. Ofc noone says its impossible, we all WANT sc2 to prosper, which is why we want elements of an already successful game to be added to it! Saying I refuse to give the game a chance is off base though, I played while I was in the US and was top 20 in my plat league for a couple weeks a few patches ago, currently i cant paly so i watch a lot of VODs
This isn't Brood War 1.5, it was never planned to be.
But it is the sequel, so it would be great if some aspects of the original game that helped it grow to be awesome were included, no? How is it a bad thing if these aspects have already been confirmed to help the game become more deep and enjoyable?
It's a new game with a new engine which is still in beta for christ sake, if you expect a game to be perfect in Beta then you obviously have super high standards higher than that of the royalty of various countries, so how about you stop arguing about what's not in the game, look at what is and try and make the best with what Blizzard have very kindly supplied us with after 8 years of waiting and enjoy the game, for what it is. An amazing game.
I dont expect it to be perfect obviously, but seeing as its starcraft 2 and blizzard is making it, safe to say my expectations are high. The sequel to SC MUST surpass SC itself, and its never too soon to be discussing how that can be brought about, instead of just being complacent and saying 'its fine as is'
It being in beta is a huge reason WHY i continue to post, and argue.
This game is good
nay, GREAT. But it wont be as good as broodwar, unless certain parts of it are changed. Anyone who has watched and played broodwar for any good amount of time will agree. Its not about nostalgia, nor about fanboyism (well...maybe it is a bit), but mainly, its about everyone wanting sc2 to be better then BW, so the community isnt split.
|
Amazing article and great dicussion on a very critical subject of sc2!
I really like your glide vs moving shot examples! It seems like you're on to something there!
One thing thought we should be careful not to compare it too much to starcraft bw. I myself have a hard time doing that, but I really think we need to think more objectively about sc2.
|
On April 27 2010 17:25 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 16:36 Eury wrote:
Next time cut out all the Blizzard bashing, and you got half the size of the article. I don't see how your bashing adds anything to the point you are trying to make, instead it just ends up hurting the article. Why should Blizzard read your article where you insult them over and over again. Would you do that if you where in their shoes?
I hope TL admins will close this thread, and you can instead rewrite and then repost your article without the fluff. Right now it reads like a tiresome rant that Blizzard will most likely ignore. I agree it could have done very well, probably better without the Blizzard and especially the Browder hate. And even if the criticism may be warranted, the tone towards Blizzards and the attacks on DB weren't really necessary to make a point. Still that's Lalushs problem since it weakens his post, not going to close an excellent thread because of that.
This is such an excellent thread. Where people are arguing about post count and making hyperbolic statements.
Who knew that an OP full with rants, insults and inflammatory language would spawn a thread filled with the very same thing.
If for some bizarre reason the admins still like the thread to remain open, at least start to moderate this whole mess. Thank you.
|
had a really good read even if it was pretty long 
I aggree with your point of SC2 just feeling not right atm and i thought the ball vs ball mass slaughters were what annoyed me. but the idea of moving shot could change the game in a more micro intensive way which leads away from the big army battles. so hopefully blizzard will come up with something like this. also liked the Dustin browder jokes, nice writeup 
|
On April 28 2010 02:30 infrinjinsin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" Interesting that a reasonable objective outlook on sc2 is inversely proportional to post count on these forums. Or are there high post count people who think the article is misguided nostalgic nonsense as well? Can such a relaxed attitude coexist with large e-peens? Here's a news flash: Sequels are ALWAYS a let-down for die hard fans.
People with high post counts -> generally knowledgeable -> know what's good for the game.
|
I haven't played the beta personally, but I also disagree with the inflated damage, the new damage system in general (BW worked fine...), and the lack of harassment micro, and also the strengthening of air units in general.
I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I think you could word many parts more tactfully. Try to remove the word "stupid" from your article. Rather than calling it stupid, explain coherently why it's inferior to your idea. That's what I would do.
|
On April 28 2010 02:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" I disagree with the OP and I've been on this website since day one. It's loaded with suppositions and skewed arguments. The sad thing is that it's so long that it's guaranteed to get showered with praise -- and to some extent rightly so, it took a lot of effort to write. Don't get me wrong, there's nobody that's a bigger fan of clever engine exploitation than me. Coming from a QA background, it's quite entertaining and impressive to see. The idea that we should import all the bugs from BW is anything but a sound one, though, and my earlier posts in the thread describe that further.
Well, Im not supporting EVERYTHING said in the article, but the main point that people are debating here is that the things that made BW good (intense, demanding micro, and certain bugs) should not be in sc2, as its a new game
My problem with that is, so what if it is? It cant borrow from the old and add onto it to make it even better? how could that hurt!? ;_;
|
On April 28 2010 02:25 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 02:18 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 02:11 Garrl wrote:On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post. On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days. True, and I have to admit I also do kinda ignore posts by people with low post counts during most of the time but im getting tired of TL being all about post count e-peen for so many people >_> Its not exactly that higher post count = bigger e-peen, or even that high post count users are always smart or huge contributors. Hell, look at charliemurphy. Even I managed to get 22xx posts even though as you can tell im pretty confrontational and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. The reason that when a low post user says something in relation to both BW and SC2, its not taken entirely seriously because normally, the low posts users only came here for sc2, and didnt really give BW a chance, or watch its progaming scene quite as closely, or at all. again, thats not saying this applies as a blanket statement to all low post users, but...you know what i mean.
I completely agree with you, and i think the same a lot more often than I want to admit >_>
But as you now said (without behaving like a douche, thank you) there are still players who have experience but just prefer to lurk and TL vets or well, vets in general tend to bash them a bit too hard as you did in your first post..
|
On April 28 2010 02:30 infrinjinsin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" Interesting that a reasonable objective outlook on sc2 is inversely proportional to post count on these forums. Or are there high post count people who think the article is misguided nostalgic nonsense as well? Can such a relaxed attitude coexist with large e-peens? Here's a news flash: Sequels are ALWAYS a let-down for die hard fans.
oh yeah, you definitely got the point, and your use of big words intimidates the hell out of me.
As to your news flash? SC2 doesnt HAVE to be a let-down for die-hard BW fans. And maybe after its out and has had a few patches, it wont be. But the fact remains that the things that people complain about are easy to fix, and theres no reason that sc2 should be a step back from its prequel in ANY way, even if it is a step forward in many other ways.
|
I also don't understand how some people in this thread are refusing to have the patrol-micro in SC2. Isn't it the more the merrier? I support the return of this "feature" since it adds so much to the game. Patrol-micro takes so much attention from the player that he should keep his screen on the units most of the time.
If it is possible for the developers to implement soon, why not?
|
I think any of these posts trying to compare SC2 BETA to a game that evolved through patches and a metagame for over 10 years is ridiculous. How long did it take muta stacking to be discovered? I'm sure people didn't install SC1 and start microing their air units to shoot on the move etc etc. It is like Day[9] said in one of his podcasts, if you went back in time to the day before muta stacking was discovered and asked any of the top progamers "Has SC1/BW been totally figured out?" they would probably say "Yeah, we know all the secrets of the game." and then BAM, revolutionary technique.
Another example is the game SSBM (Super smash bros melee) the game was COMPLETELY revolutionized years after it was released when Wavedashing was discovered. How can people say that there are no advanced micro techniques in SC2? It is entirely possible, I would even bet money on it, that somewhere down the road some one will discover a micro technique that has a huge impact on game play.
Also take a look at WC3 (Not saying wc3 is a good game, just using it as an example). Shortly after the game was released people bashed it for being totally unbalanced, no skill at all, and RPG instead of an RTS etc etc etc. However if you take a look at how much the game evolved simply over time it is basically two completely different games. People reached a level of skill, and discovered things about the game that people never thought would be possible.
TLDR: Give SC2 time to evolve, there is a small player pool compared to how many players will be playing the game after release, and a LOT of the players are WoW baddies stuck in copper league that don't know building more than 6 SCVs is good. I bet if we all look back on the beta 5 years from now we will see a totally different game.
|
Surely the game still needs time to evolve? Or are we already at a point where we can conclusively say there will be no special micro tricks developed over time? It seems like people want to be handed the perfect competitive RTS on a plate right from the very first release but that simply can't happen given that there have always been two expansions planned for the game.
You may reject SC2 as fundamentally flawed due to the lack of moving shot yet Plexa has shown that a similar technique is entirely possible in the current engine, we just haven't reached a point where the play is refined enough to warrant making use of it. In the first couple of weeks you even had folk claiming that all we would ever need is attack move but the play seen in most tournaments to date have shown that to be a ridiculous assertion. Even still, most replays I watch are riddled with sloppy unit control/build orders and no sign that anyone has come even remotely close to pushing the limits of what is possible in the game, which is all perfectly natural as yes, that old chestnut rears its head again, we're still in the beta.
Would it really be so terrible to wait and see what the game develops into before writing it off?
|
IMO, Strategy and Tactics > Micro
I know as a spectator sport, Micro >> ALL in terms of crowd pleasing. But as a player, I rather outsmart my opponent than out-click them. I like the way sc2 is currently, I can be in the running for plat rank 1 with an average APM of 80.
|
Just get the SC2 pro mod working instead of an April Fools joke. Blizzard was surprised by a totally new genre of game being developed in Warcraft 3 and haveing a Brood-War-mod with all the old units and a certain degree of new ones would probably find lots of fans.
|
On April 28 2010 02:39 MarGeta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 02:25 TheAntZ wrote:On April 28 2010 02:18 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 02:11 Garrl wrote:On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post. On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days. True, and I have to admit I also do kinda ignore posts by people with low post counts during most of the time but im getting tired of TL being all about post count e-peen for so many people >_> Its not exactly that higher post count = bigger e-peen, or even that high post count users are always smart or huge contributors. Hell, look at charliemurphy. Even I managed to get 22xx posts even though as you can tell im pretty confrontational and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. The reason that when a low post user says something in relation to both BW and SC2, its not taken entirely seriously because normally, the low posts users only came here for sc2, and didnt really give BW a chance, or watch its progaming scene quite as closely, or at all. again, thats not saying this applies as a blanket statement to all low post users, but...you know what i mean. I completely agree with you, and i think the same a lot more often than I want to admit >_> But as you now said (without behaving like a douche, thank you) there are still players who have experience but just prefer to lurk and TL vets or well, vets in general tend to bash them a bit too hard as you did in your first post..
Insult first. Think later. But yeah I wouldnt have been generalizing so hard, if i hadnt seen so many posts going "I'd rather not have the things that made BW good in sc2, thanks"
Its like...well to draw an analogy, say that when you were 10, you got a starscream (transformers) toy, and it looked kinda cheap, but it could transform into a plane, and that was a whole bunch of fun. Now you're 20, and you just got a new starscream. Now this guy is great, fully flexible, has weaponry you can attach to him, can be posed in several different poses, very nicely made and shiny...but he cant transform. So many steps forward, and yet just one step back and it feels extremely disappointing, seeing as that one thing is what made the previous toy great. And sure you like the new toy, admire it and accept that it is better in many ways, yet theres no reason that it couldnt be EVEN better by being able to transform in addition to that, something the older one could. You see what I mean? Thats kinda the best analogy I could come up with right now ~_~
|
On April 28 2010 02:25 Garrl wrote:
Heh, copper league players telling BW players to get a grip. Cute.
Wasn't it?
I shouldn't have said "BW players should get a grip". Bad choice of words. Perhaps the OP might have better luck finding acceptable game skill ceiling in a more action oriented genre, such as FPS. I just think that the kind of exploits he's talking about for micro are a little silly for an RTS game... But I know nothing with my tiny e-peen and low post count!
|
I think any of these posts trying to compare SC2 BETA to a game that evolved through patches and a metagame for over 10 years is ridiculous. How long did it take muta stacking to be discovered? I'm sure people didn't install SC1 and start microing their air units to shoot on the move etc etc. It is like Day[9] said in one of his podcasts, if you went back in time to the day before muta stacking was discovered and asked any of the top progamers "Has SC1/BW been totally figured out?" they would probably say "Yeah, we know all the secrets of the game." and then BAM, revolutionary technique.
The thing is, people back in those days didn't deliberately try to find micro tricks, but in SC2, people are spending days trying to find them, and even then, Blizzard will still probably find a way to call it imba and then take it out. I'm sure, if they still made BW patches, muta stacking would've been taken out a long time ago.
People have already dug pretty deep to find micro tricks; to the extent of mirror match imbalances to the leftmost unit always striking first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
