That said... its not a terrible article. Some of the attack/moving mechanics for some units should be changed. Just please don't bring back muta stacking (Sorry but that was dumb)
Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 39
Forum Index > SC2 General |
fantomex
United States313 Posts
That said... its not a terrible article. Some of the attack/moving mechanics for some units should be changed. Just please don't bring back muta stacking (Sorry but that was dumb) | ||
Zoltan
United States656 Posts
To be honest- i feel this method of thinking is only goign to set people back in SC2. Somone else already quoted Day[9] [quoteDay9 said a genius thing yesterday on his daily: You should play the game given the current set of rules and ask yourself, how do I play optimally in this situation? After you realize that you can play optimally in most situations (which I doubt anyone can claim right now), then can you only start thinking about whether the current gameplay is in any way favored to lucky all-ins as opposed to a more management macro game approach. [/quote] And honestly while there arent any vulture/muta micro tricks like BW- theres plenty of sweet micro to be abused. Reapers jumping diagonaly up and down cliffs can cover TONS of ground in no time, hellions require absolute perfect micro to be a good tactical unit, marauders and marine micro is subtle yet wins and loses games on its own. (only terran examples from terran player), but i think i got my point across. | ||
infrinjinsin
United States16 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:26 fantomex wrote: I'm more annoyed that my medivacs don't heal while moving than anything brought up here. Have you tried patrolling and then a-moving them at a 180 degree angle in rapid succession, to the injured infantry unit? Damn that Dustin Browder and his CnC tyrrany! | ||
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:30 Zoltan wrote: I really hate the tone of this article- but i can feel the OP's need to vent his frustration over one small mechanic. I agree that the fastest air unit in the game (Pheonix) SHOULD be able to hit and run on a group of mutalisks without dying (not currently the case), However, for the rest of the units in the game, you can "dance" with most of them, and i think that hellions would be rediculously OP if you could move attack with them the way you can with vultures. To be honest- i feel this method of thinking is only goign to set people back in SC2. Somone else already quoted Day[9] [quoteDay9 said a genius thing yesterday on his daily: You should play the game given the current set of rules and ask yourself, how do I play optimally in this situation? After you realize that you can play optimally in most situations (which I doubt anyone can claim right now), then can you only start thinking about whether the current gameplay is in any way favored to lucky all-ins as opposed to a more management macro game approach. And honestly while there arent any vulture/muta micro tricks like BW- theres plenty of sweet micro to be abused. Reapers jumping diagonaly up and down cliffs can cover TONS of ground in no time, hellions require absolute perfect micro to be a good tactical unit, marauders and marine micro is subtle yet wins and loses games on its own. (only terran examples from terran player), but i think i got my point across. You missed the point being so that the game can be GOOD TO WATCH which Patrol Micro clearly promotes. It just shows how the player can allocate his APM on his army so that he can come out on top (against all odds) by just microing his units properly. If the Hellions prove to be imbalanced with Patrol Micro, the stats can be easily tweaked. | ||
Half
United States2554 Posts
I agree with the premise, but I disagree with your conclusion. SC1 has a very strong skill wall between even the lowest level of competitive play and the highest level of casual play. You could call this the D/D- wall. In order to become D+ as a Zerg, for example, you must learn Muta micro. Period. You don't have to be great at it, but you need minimal proficiency in the concept. And since Muta micro is an arcane concept that requires a nonsensical array of inputs to work correctly, the only way to learn it is to read about it online. You'll never figure out the sequence of inputs and timings necessary otherwise. So the division is between those who spend time researching online and those who don't. So long as SC1's skills are based on arbitrary game engine quirks rather than explicit design, discovering them will be a question of culture rather than learning. If you're part of the TeamLiquid.net community, you can find the tricks and get ahead. If you're not, and you're not part of a similar community, you never will. I don't get it. The premise of your sides argument was that arcane rituals like Mutalisk micro would emerge naturally, while our premise is make the game functional without said arcane rituals. @Some other guy who posted without thinking.... To be honest- i feel this method of thinking is only goign to set people back in SC2. Somone else already quoted Day[9] [quoteDay9 said a genius thing yesterday on his daily: You should play the game given the current set of rules and ask yourself, how do I play optimally in this situation? After you realize that you can play optimally in most situations (which I doubt anyone can claim right now), then can you only start thinking about whether the current gameplay is in any way favored to lucky all-ins as opposed to a more management macro game approach. This is so irrelevant that I think you posted in the wrong thread or something. | ||
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
| ||
AnodyneSea
Jamaica757 Posts
| ||
raga4ka
Bulgaria5676 Posts
| ||
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 28 2010 01:33 Qikz wrote: Retarded unit clumping? How about you MICRO your units so they don't do it? Because clumping is actually more advantageous then Brood War Spread, it allows you to form perfect ranged concaves with two mouse clicks. | ||
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
| ||
SaftKalasEmil
Sweden213 Posts
Take care and GL HF with the next thread! | ||
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:08 infrinjinsin wrote: Bah.. Nerd > Nerd alcoholic I am a total newb, this cannot be denied. I just registered to respond to this thread specifically because the tone was like "so much is WRONG with SC2." But I think pretty much everything about it is frickin awesome. I played a good deal of BW, not enough to get very good though. Here's the thing - why on earth would anyone see only being able to select 12 units is a good thing? Only people who have invested a great deal of time to become masters at working around such a limitation could be so inane, and the moving shot exploits are the same I feel. That's kind of why I said "get a grip" but what I meant was more "take a step back and think objectively". Nobody is suggesting selecting only twelve units in starcraft 2 is a good thing. Well, nobody intelligent. | ||
killias2
United States20 Posts
I do think there are some problems with SC2 as things stand. Hard counters are far too prevalent and powerful. I think this is at the heart of most of the controversies. Still, even though you imply the opposite ("Starcraft had a one size fits all damage system. Now how the hell did Blizzard balance it despite not being able to give units arbitrary bonus damage values towards specific armor types?"), Starcraft actually DID have a unit type/damage type system. Why do you think bats were GREAT against Zealots and lings and absolutely awful at everything else? The difference between SC1 and 2 here is that SC2 has beefed up the system, and, IMO, probably a bit too much. This explains why buildings are too easy to destroy, thus rendering defense difficult at best (any unit with + vs. armored will rip through buildings like tissue paper), why Terran ground is essentially worthless against Protoss ground in mid-game (name a Terran unit that isn't hard countered by a major component of a mid-game Protoss army...), and why certain early cheese is so effective (fast reaper.. Jesus, WAY too effective). It also gives off the "rock, paper, scissors" feel that makes games feel slightly more luck-based than SC1 did. Nonetheless, these problems can be dealt with without your favored mechanic, and, in fact, this mechanic does virtually nothing to address any of these problems. How would better micro-ed air lead to any changes in the balance? Phoenix may be better against Muta... but Muta will be better against virtually everything else. I also not convinced that a well micro-ed Muta couldn't respond to a well micro-ed Phoenix. Even within the contours of the game AS IS, there are solutions to these problems. First and foremost, SCOUT! Scouting is a HUGE part of this game. In fact, due to the hard counters, its quite possibly more important than in the first one. I understand that scouting while creating armies, expanding, macroing, and harassing is difficult.. but that's why you need skill. Along with all the classics of micro (skills, cliff abuse, utilizing opportunities for mobility, harassing, etc.), scouting must also use up valuable APM. If you can't handle it, please return to Brood War. I'm sure you'll have more fun, and I won't have to read another 10 page piece on how Browder doesn't care about the fans and how SC2 is all about n00bs and bright colors. Edit: Let me flesh out my complaint a little more here. Although I think this article has nuggets of useful analysis, it also makes -the- standard annoying SC1 fan series of mistakes. Step 1, discuss a potential flaw with SC2. Here I'm with you. Step 2, discuss the ramifications of this flaw. Here, you begin to lose me a bit, as you don't prove that SC2 has no micro, you don't prove that skills don't matter in SC2, and you don't prove that your favored mechanic would really have an impact on balance unless everything is completely rebalanced. But, whatever, it's a first cut analysis, so I can give you some slack here. Step 3, this flaw has ruined the game, possibly beyond repair. Therefore, unless redress is made, you will turn your back to SC2 forever. Here is really where you jump the shark. This game is not "ruined" by the lack of some minor mechanic and tactical differences. A lot of people have a lot of fun with it, and I think this will be born out even further as we get post-release. If you're that wrapped up in a 12 year old game, then go ahead and play it. The mere fact that SC2 has SOME MINOR distinctions from the first one does not destroy it irreparably, as it offers plenty of unique, interesting, and skill intensive elements itself. Step 4, Browder sucks and Blizzard hates its fans. This is where things really go too far. You convince yourself that they've destroyed the game with some minor tweak, and, in order to justify this, you just assume that Blizzard, Browder, Activision, etc. are just money grubbing goblins out to sully Starcraft's good name. Here is really where your analysis rubs me the wrong way, and I think you go too far with it. In the future, FOCUS ON MAKING YOUR CASE. Talk about the issue more, compare animations. Then, if you wish to make claims about skill, then discuss APM, pro replays, pro commentary, plat tendencies, etc. The data is available. If it's as bad as you say, then APM should have little relationship with victory. If you make this claim, then -actually make the case for this claim.- Only once you've proved that there are ANY ramifications of interest should you go to Steps 3 and 4, i.e. complaining about the game being ruined and about Blizzard going to the dark side. | ||
Qikz
United Kingdom12021 Posts
I feel people should atleast give the game alot longer. | ||
junemermaid
United States981 Posts
The SC1 engine was a complete and utter fluke. Blizzard is trying to take, what they think, are the best parts of that engine and incorporating it into SC2. SC2 might have a host of new micro techniques available. Then again, it might not. Since there are a ton of experienced players trying to figure out how units work, I think we'll find out soon enough if there is enough meat on them bones for SC2 to live up to its predecessor. | ||
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:53 killias2 wrote: [long ass post] Examine this table: | ||
Fallen
Canada192 Posts
On April 28 2010 03:53 killias2 wrote: I think this article has some good points, but, overall, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yeah, some elements of micro have been lost, but others have been added in. I honestly don't know how you can make the argument that SC2 does not involve micro and/or does not allow pros to distinguish themselves from amateurs. These are critical points to your viewpoint, and you don't come anywhere close to proving them. Hell, as someone who plays fairly frequently (Gold) and watches a lot of replays, I just don't believe either of these points are true. Better players can differentiate themselves in plenty of ways. There are hundreds of important uses for micro in terms of harassment, pitched battles, and scouting, and I just don't see how someone who PLAYS this game can't see that. I do think there are some problems with SC2 as things stand. Hard counters are far too prevalent and powerful. I think this is at the heart of most of the controversies. Still, even though you imply the opposite ("Starcraft had a one size fits all damage system. Now how the hell did Blizzard balance it despite not being able to give units arbitrary bonus damage values towards specific armor types?"), Starcraft actually DID have a unit type/damage type system. Why do you think bats were GREAT against Zealots and lings and absolutely awful at everything else? The difference between SC1 and 2 here is that SC2 has beefed up the system, and, IMO, probably a bit too much. This explains why buildings are too easy to destroy, thus rendering defense difficult at best (any unit with + vs. armored will rip through buildings like tissue paper), why Terran ground is essentially worthless against Protoss ground in mid-game (name a Terran unit that isn't hard countered by a major component of a mid-game Protoss army...), and why certain early cheese is so effective (fast reaper.. Jesus, WAY too effective). It also gives off the "rock, paper, scissors" feel that makes games feel slightly more luck-based than SC1 did. Nonetheless, these problems can be dealt with without your favored mechanic, and, in fact, this mechanic does virtually nothing to address any of these problems. How would better micro-ed air lead to any changes in the balance? Phoenix may be better against Muta... but Muta will be better against virtually everything else. I also not convinced that a well micro-ed Muta couldn't respond to a well micro-ed Phoenix. Even within the contours of the game AS IS, there are solutions to these problems. First and foremost, SCOUT! Scouting is a HUGE part of this game. In fact, due to the hard counters, its quite possibly more important than in the first one. I understand that scouting while creating armies, expanding, macroing, and harassing is difficult.. but that's why you need skill. Along with all the classics of micro (skills, cliff abuse, utilizing opportunities for mobility, harassing, etc.), scouting must also use up valuable APM. If you can't handle it, please return to Brood War. I'm sure you'll have more fun, and I won't have to read another 10 page piece on how Browder doesn't care about the fans and how SC2 is all about n00bs and bright colors. Well said! I can't believe this thread is getting so much replies. I'm glad its a different game, I wouldnt like to play "brood war with better graphics". They kept enough of the first game to get the feel of it and they did a marvelous job if you ask me. I wanted new mechanics, new units and totally different strategies and tactics. Thats what I got and im very happy with the results that I've got my hands on. I'm sure some poeple will come up with "brood war with better graphics" custom maps and all you whiners and BW fanbois can go play that! I'm also glad lalush wasnt on the balance team, what a horrible POS we would be playing right now lol. | ||
Yggdrasil Leaf
221 Posts
| ||
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
Dude I am high and tripping shit but that makes sense to EVEN me. Everyone should get the point, but somehow they keep missing the damn thing. | ||
jellyfish
United States149 Posts
On April 28 2010 04:01 Fallen wrote: Well said! I can't believe this thread is getting so much replies. I'm glad its a different game, I wouldnt like to play "brood war with better graphics". They kept enough of the first game to get the feel of it and they did a marvelous job if you ask me. I wanted new mechanics, new units and totally different strategies and tactics. Thats what I got and im very happy with the results that I've got my hands on. I'm sure some poeple will come up with "brood war with better graphics" custom maps and all you whiners and BW fanbois can go play that! I'm also glad lalush wasnt on the balance team, what a horrible POS we would be playing right now lol. I'm terribly sorry to be so blunt but your condescending attitude is too much: If you haven't played/studied/followed competitive bw you have no idea what a good, competitive balance means. And if you weren't talking about competitive balance, then you have no idea what this thread, and the op is talking about. | ||
| ||