|
DISCLAIMER: I don't want this to turn into some BW vs SC2 or mechanics vs spamfest hatefest. I know it looks that way but read between the lines for 2 seconds before you respond. Anyone who responds with an idiotic flame, dumb nerf, or game design suggestion gets a 1 week minimum. This is a discussion and analysis of the game we all enjoy.
Being an avid spectator and halfway decent player I find myself rooting for the success of ESPORTS, actually, mostly of just SC2. I like the game but it's still missing it. It's missing the magic that BW had.
People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct, but that doesn't mean it's perfect the way it is now or that all the problems will ever be fixed. So, I guess this is my advice to Blizzard for the upcoming expansions.
A fundamental design flaw.
In ZvP how do you prepare for an upcoming battle? ZvT? PvT? PvZ? TvP? Chances are the answer everyone gives to that question is exactly the same. You minimize or maximize surface area, what else can you do? Units in this game don't require setup time. The function of nearly every unit in this game is simple and one dimensional, reduce or improve DPS. One of the few exceptions to this is the siege tank, I'll touch more on this later.
Can you name 6 things going on during this battle?
What about this one?
Do you know what game flow is?
We used to have a term that was used abundantly on this board that described a pivotal aspect of competitive play. Controlling the game flow is, in essence, controlling the pace of the game. In ZvT, if a Terran wanted to push out and kill your third, you exercised your map control to slow down the Terran push by slowly moving back lurkers as they got in tank range. Conversely, if you wanted to force an engagement as Terran you unsiege and attack towards another position or drop harass his bases, forcing the Zerg to completely reposition. When you're controlling the flow, the only things that can happen are the things you allow to happen. If he wants a big fight, you drop everywhere. If he wants a macro game, you attack him constantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlCQEw0_-r0
The day the Maestro almost lost his rhythm.
The importance of map control.
Map control isn't really how much of the map you are literally covering with buildings and units, rather it is how much area can you freely move without contest. Put simply, just because you have a unit in a certain area doesn't mean you have map control of that area, it's that fact that you can actively deny movement in that area that makes it map control. It seems to me like all these ideas build upon one another and that if you want to be able to control the flow of the game you need to have map control, and if you want to have map control you need units that can do more than add DPS. You need units with map prescence. BW had units like lurkers, siege tanks, and vultures that could very effectively control sections of the map. Can you name one other than the siege tank that SC2 has?
Map control.
Positioning and setup time.
I don't really know how to explain positioning, but thankfully there are units that personify the idea of positioning perfectly: siege tanks and lurkers. If you've ever been a victim of a lurker or siege tank contain you know how powerful these units are when they are properly setup. 5 properly setup siege tanks can mow down twice the amount of dragoons and 5 properly positioned lurkers could deny an infinite amount of marines from touching your expansion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT_fvKBwjDo#t=14m40s
The Iron Curtain.
Another unique aspect of the siege tank and lurker was that they required time before they were useful, tanks had to siege and lurkers had to burrow. This introduced a unique dynamic in which armies weren't always doing 100% DPS and introduced the idea that you can actively seek to cost-effectively trade units BEFORE tanks or lurkers were setup. This gave micromanagement a larger role to play other than simply pulling away damaged units. If you're attacking into a Terran army as Zerg, you are using lings to tank the majority of the damage and buy time for your lurkers to burrow in addition to trapping marines and killing tanks. Of course, your Terran opponent isn't just sitting there, he's microing his marines back, dodging spines, escaping lings, and picking off the lurkers that you are still advancing. As a zerg or terran in ZvT it was entirely possible to attack into the opposing army and kill almost nothing while losing everything if your control was worse.
What this adds up to is that it gives the person with proper positioning a significant defender's advantage so, even if you come out somewhat behind in an engagement, your opponent can't immediately attack into your remaining army without severe repercussion. This also introduced a way to delay your opponent by slowly giving up ground rather than doing what most SC2 player have to do, which is run back to their nat and turtle until they have a unit advantage. It also meant it required some finesse to get the most out of your attack. If your opponent was low on unit count, you couldn't just 1a into his army, micro a little, and still come out on top. What it really comes down to is that unit relationships were far more complex and, as a result, proper engagements required a higher level of control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LIzq92Q1aE#t=18m0s
Trade. Delay. Crush.
Player-unit interaction.
One of the only sources of player-unit interaction in SC2 are spellcasters because they are one of the only units that require actual micromanagement to use properly. The problem with the spellcasters, though, is that they themselves don't promote a player involved response. Think about the sentry and the spells it has, if a guardian shield or forcefield goes up, as the opposing player what are you doing differently? Chances are you aren't doing anything or you are in full retreat. What about the infestor? What's your response to the infestor besides maximizing surface area or neutralizing it before the battle? When a fungal goes off there is literally nothing you can do to avoid further damage, you just sit there thinking, "well this kinda sucks, I need to spread more".
If we take a moment to consider BW spellcasters, we can see that not only did BW spellcasters involve massive player-unit interaction to use properly but also player-unit interaction to combat. Psi storm required tons of apm to use effectively or to dodge; irradiate could be used to massacre high value zerg units but it could also be turned against you; and dark swarm required exquisite levels of control on both sides. When you see a dark swarm get thrown up in a TvZ you don't go, "well that sucks, I need to kill defilers faster", you unsiege your tanks, run out of lurker range and keep raining shells because dark swarm assists zerg units rather than directly hindering terran units. I mean, obviously it hinders terran units to an extent, but you are able to mitigate damage and micro out of it, there's not an instantaneous downpour of lasers down on your army because staple damage dealers required setup time. It's not like it was easy for the zerg to use properly either, it wasn't a fire and forget spell like forcefield. After it was casted both players were microing their asses off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxzUWXO28dE#t=2m54s
Just amazing.
Take plague vs fungal growth. If all my front marines plagued, I can run them behind healthier units and still use them to some degree. If I get my front marines fungal'd I get to sit there watching them die stuck in place and there's almost nothing I can do to avoid a second fungal other than running headlong into more fungals. More importantly, plague required a large amount of time to research and you could only cast one per defiler before you had to consume, and many times dark swarm was a better choice. On the other hand, fungal is the primary infestor spell and is smartcasted.
Psi storm vs psi storm? A psi storm in SC2 is almost meaningless. In BW, the beauty of psi storm was purely because of the mechanics required to cast it. I don't think there is any debate here. In SC2 smartcast forced a nerf on psi storm to the point where a single psi storm means almost nothing and it requires the screen to be carpeted for it to even be effective. In BW, sequential psi storms were extremely difficult to pull off mid-battle, but had a tremendous payoff. In SC2, not only is it not impressive to see 4 psi storms casted, it's damn stupid to micro against. Microing against a storm almost always means running into 3 more storms because it's so ridiculously easy to cast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IbwjeCx6U
SC2 storms will never be this impressive.
Even staple units were replaced by less interesting, less interactive versions of themselves. Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra? There's just no contest.
Mechanics were more than a skill gap.
Having a mechanics requirement was what made things in BW impressive. Saying an RTS player only wins because he's faster is like saying a boxer only wins because he's stronger and not a better fighter. It's just stupid.
The high mechanical requirement enabled extremely skilled players to use their units in ways no one ever could. It made large engagements an event in itself because of how difficult it is to maintain your composure when you are controlling 200/200 armies with a 12 unit limit. Huge army fights were a means to and end, and not and end within themselves. The final battle wasn't a formality to end the game that you knew ended minutes ago, it was a direct contest between players. It was the moment when both players go, "I don't care how big your army is, I have mine and I'm going to kill you with it". Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds.
The sweet irony is that, if multiple unit selection was implemented in BW, battles would still be more interesting and impressive than SC2 battles simply because of unit dynamics. You can't just 1a BW units and have then attack at full effectiveness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cae67O_ibT0
Finesse at 400apm.
What does any of this have to do with spectators?
It has EVERYTHING to do with the spectators, one of the main reason that BW was such an intense game is because it provided the necessary build-up and tension. Staple damage dealers like the lurker and siege tank made you hold your breath every time an attack happened. It's like riding a roller coaster, the slow trip up to the first drop is what makes that first drop so exhilarating. When lurkers are burrowing, mines are being laid, or tanks are sieging the audience is collectively holding its breath. When a protoss or zerg attacks prepares into a heavily fortified tank line, that moment, before the engagement, is just as important, if not more important, than the engagement itself, from a viewer perspective. It's like watching the closing seconds of a tied basketball game, time is out but the ball is in the air. The entire context of the situation gives the action importance, it's not action for action's sake. When I watch an SC2 TvP battle, or ZvP battle there's absolutely no tension. There's TONS of things, exploding, catching on fire, or dying in other sparkly ways, but I don't really care because the conclusion is nearly forgone, I'm just waiting for the AI to make a fancy show out of it.
On the other hand when Savior preparing to dive into oov's gigantic tank line I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "He's not going for it is he? OMG HE'S GOING FOR IT! AAAAAAAAA(<--when the army starts advancing)". When the first dark swarms go off and lurkers burrow "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA", when the spines go off and the first row of tanks disappears, "OOOOOOOMMMMGGGGGGGGGG". I can continue watch his progression laid out clearly on my screen. The zerg pushing into terran territory, how far is he going to get? Commentators and fangirls screaming, tank after tank exploding, zergling after zergling splattering all over the map, but Savior keeps marching till there are no tanks left, "HOLY SHIT. I guess that's why they call him Maestro".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJfTDBgX8I#t=12m40s
This game is what StarCraft is all about.
|
Agree with most of the above.
I think more differentiators of skill and better scouting would take a lot of inconsistency and volatility out of the game.
To elaborate, I'm thinking of the inconsistency that prevents players from dominating over others as much as they used to due to easier mechanics, like Flash/Jaedong/Bisu/Stork have for years; the most obvious example to me is Mvp, MC and the like losing many more matches to foreigners than was once possible despite practicing 12 hours a day in pro houses. Yes, this is why we are closer to their skill level than we used to be: heavy practice isn't rewarded as much. Before leaving Korea, ret said that in eSTRO he felt his mechanics constantly improving, whereas in oGs he wasn't gaining as much from the environment.
The volatility of the game is due to a number of factors, but what seems most obvious to me are build order losses and lessened scouting that can't be overcome by superior macro. I recall IdrA mentioning something about this--a progamer on ICCup could still beat a high level amateur even if his build was directly countered, whereas comebacks in SC2 are much more difficult.
But! Blizzard won't make SC2 mechanically difficult--to them it's a step back, which is logical from a casual perspective.
The only thing I can think of is to introduce new units that have a clearly apparent high skill ceiling. This would also help generate excitement in the spectator. Marine control comes to mind; colossi are the exact opposite. I'd describe them as "e-sports units".
A list of examples of what I mean:
StarCraft: Brood War
workers (moving shot)
zealot bombs/bulldogging, goon control (buggy), storm drops, dt drops (detection avoidance), reaver/shuttle control, dark archon (rarely), carrier control, arbiters
marine/medic control, ghosts (rarely), vulture raids, mine laying (offensive/defensive), wraith micro, multi-pronged drops, science vessel (abilities, scourge dodge)
ling surround/movement, hydra control, lurker position/burrow timing/hold lurker, muta micro, drops
defilers, queens (rarely)
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
blink micro, force fields, storm/drop (autocast), dt drop/warp (all warp/drops), phoenix lifting/control (moving shots on own), void ray charging? not as much now, recall/vortex rarely
marine/marauder control (more marine), reaper control (before nerf), EMP aim, hellion raids, multi pronged drops, ravens, banshee kiting/avoidance
burrowed banes/bombs, roach burrow, fungal/occasionally other spells, nydus/dropping, muta control, to a lesser extent
Perhaps new, more complex macro mechanics could recreate the difficulty that was reduced by SC2's easier interface as well. Regarding unit AI, I think something needs to be done to avoid the blob syndrome...maybe make units not push each other out of the way?
My ultimate thought is that the harder the game, the better the competition; and the more skill that can be displayed, the better the spectator experience.
|
wow. epic post. can you please get this man on the blizzard dev team.
|
I find it hard to believe anyone can disagree with the points you raised. However I do think you missed something initially. A battle in BW could span minutes while a battle in SC2 is almost always over in a matter of seconds. Things just happen too quick.
|
I guess sc2 is just more noob-friendly. I also think you forgot to mention multibuilding selection.
|
I think SC2 just needs more time. Granted I didn't read the entire post but I read a good amount of it, future expansions might make sc2 even better than bw some day.
|
Agree 100%, and I say this never having played a real game of BW in my life.
People always talk about the game needing more time to mature, but I think that will only lead to less volatility as strategies evolve, not BW levels of epic-ness. SC2 just has too many design flaws as it stands now.
|
Most of what u say is right, SC BW is and will still be the best game, but just look at the opportunity of SC2.
The game is clearly not as good as SC BW but still got the huge and growing fanbase (outside korea) that SCBW always missing, omg @ NASL 
So we just have to hope Blizzard made a huge and deep expansion and they can do it.
|
Great post. It's not BW vs SC2. I think BW is probably the best RTS ever and this post details some things that IT has that SC2 doesn't that would make SC2 better!
|
Looking back at broodwar VODs I remember how epic the battles felt. Like the maps were bigger, the units were slower. Something doesn't feel right with SC2, but I have faith it'll get there eventually. I don't know if its going to take an expansion or what.
|
BW was a lot more complicated to play, no argument there. But more complicated doesn't mean better. 7 layered guitars in a song, no matter how well constructed, doesn't make that song better than one with 2-3 layered guitars.
|
Couldn't agree more, really good post and something I really think blizz needs to consider for their upcoming expansions as I doubt sc2 will be as long lived and loved as bw if this continues.
The problem with sc2 is that they focused on the cool stuff and not what really works and is fun to play. For instance, the marauder is a unit I thought was quite cool in the beginning of sc2 beta but now I hate to make the, same with the colossus and zerg units .. just aren't as epic as they used to be. Also something like the warpgate is something I think really sucks as it makes 4gating viable no matter the size of the map really. I hope that they can revert some stuff they've done as I think it hurts the longevity of the game for having it look cool for about a month.
|
I really hope the expansions focus on more active units that demand control and strategy. That would be lovely.
|
United States12224 Posts
There was another thread that discussed "anti-micro" abilities like Force Field and Fungal Growth, and there were some valid points there. As a player, you hate being on the receiving end of those abilities, but you love the satisfaction of successfully using those abilities. They're basically game-changing, in a similar way to BW's Psi Storm or Plague. In both situations, you have to approach the opposing army with the thought of "I'll be okay as long as his spellcasting micro is suboptimal." That feeling is still preserved in SC2, it's just more pronounced because units pack together more easily and battles tend to end more quickly.
In SC2, because your units are more effective in a "ball" and you're not fighting pathing, it's almost always better to bring as many units together as possible. I think if the pathfinding in BW were better we would see the same thing. Any unit that you are not actively bringing with you is wasted potential damage that could help turn the tide of a battle.
There is still some pretty cool stuff in SC2 like Blink micro that doesn't really have a BW equivalent, though.
|
This is EXACTLY how I feel about SC2. God I wish BW was still in WCG. =(
|
I agree entirely with Mahnini. The point specifically about player/unit relationship ought to be taken to heart. Spellcasters were something to be *feared* in BW, and not necessarily just because of their abilities. It took considerable intelligence, planning and mechanical skill to pull off these game changing abilities. In SC2, it is so much easier to pull these things off--I'm never impressed by storms, for instance--that it loses some, if not all, of its effect. Your discussion of how the mechanical skill the players had meant more than just "he can micro hydras vs zealots" is so spot on. The mechanics encouraged interesting battles, heated engagements and moments to remember(it helps that the battles were longer, too--seems like SC2 battles end with a whimper).
I do believe, however, that Blizzard did try to include something very exciting that into the game: Hunter Seeker Missile. Curiously, it remains one of the least used abilities in the game yet I imagine the intent is for people to grip their seats as the missile cruises towards its target. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite go down like that.
And this comes from a Zerg BW player who never made it past D-(yet somehow can roll random and nearly get into masters in SC2). :p
|
Great post. It's pretty clear most or all the issues raised can be attributed to the transfer of formerly player-controlled actions to the AI, with things such as the smart cast mechanism, and poorly designed units from a spectator perspective(e.g. colossus) which are not dependent on player micro skill to any great extent compounding the problem.
The good news is that this would be pretty easy for Blizzard to ameliorate in the expansions, and here's hoping they do. But from the direction they've taken the game so far there's no real evidence that they will or are even thinking about it.
|
I am going to perhaps disagree with your post about mechanics. The mechanical requirements of Starcraft: Brood War were indeed partly due to design, but mainly because a minimal standard of expectation was set for pro players I think.
There are a set number of strategies and micro related skills that every player of a certain race needed to be able to do almost intuitively in order to remain competitive at the highest level. And these expectations developed over time such as unit/building timing various, certain micro skills, etc.
Once this baseline was established in the competitive community, the best players needed to find ways to go beyond the expectations of the community and perform at higher levels. They needed to poke holes in strategies that didn't seem to have holes before. A easy way to see that is the increase in APM to increase the effectiveness of units (like vultures). The increase came because there was a need to play faster and more accurately against an increasing baseline of what you could expect your opponent to be capable of.
In starcraft2, pros are still having trouble managing fundamental aspects of the game like consistent and effective use of nexus energy, queen energy, orbital energy, as well as things like unit positioning (i.e. Zealots in front) and timing. With these and other variables in play, the baseline has not really been formed yet and thus no need to go beyond improving ones own fundamentals.
When the time comes that in order to play for example Protoss competitively you need to have absolute intuitive mastery over nexus energy in as familiar a way as we expect them to have control over supply management and worker production, we would then see a formation of that needed baseline and the need to find new ways to improve ones self beyond the basic strategy or mechanics of the game. Using old units in new ways will likely require a lot of creativity and probably a bit more APM.
It might not end up looking like a good ole Brood War game, but the skill and strategic requirements of the game will be high enough to be comparable. What is and isn't "effective" (death balls) will in all likelihood change over time to suit the standard of play.
|
Nice topic if it wasn't an obvious skew towards BW favoring above SC2. I'm sorry but that's how it comes of for a person like me who never was "there" for the whole awesome BW times.
I just don't get why people mistake old coding/graphics/features as marks of triumph and master design. Trust me nobody was thinking about esports when Starcraft I was made.
Did, however, these limits give players more room to exercise "skill"? That should be the question.
I don't think so.
As Day9 said:
Anything made easier is not a dumbing down the game or making it more eazplay... IF there is some other skill moment to use your time on.
It feels as if every BW fan thinks that the fast pace of SC2 is a bad thing, whereas I see it as an obvious bigger mental challange since everything is faster and requires more micro (even if people won't admit it, there is so many many MANY mistakes constantly even by the probes, 80% chronobosts, tripple mules etc etc.)
I will agree on flawed design on some instances, zerg has to do much more to get the same results as other races imo but sadly people are just not experimenting enough. I love IdrA, but IdrA is no innovater; He won't invent the new tactic that'll win games for zerg. Just the fact that nobody uses Nydus Worms correctly yet is a show of this.
Either way I don't really appreciate this topic since it's mostly regarding the subject from a BW fanboy perspective, I do however acknowledge the topic at hand and I wish it could be discussed on a more neutral basis.
Lastly, there can be epic games in SC2 aswell, there are many games when there are tons and tons of things happening and it's great. Problem is it's still a labile game, new maps, new tactics aswell as blizzard firstly designing it to have small maps etc.
Just please remember that for every new tactic, every new "cheese" etc. that's a step forward for the game, that's something players will learn from, adapt to and develop new tactics to counter, making it more and more skewed towards skill.
|
Great post. There is a big difference between the two games and this is a great analysis of their uniqueness.
I gotta say, this is one of the most glaring differences for me:
On April 16 2011 09:46 Numy wrote:
I find it hard to believe anyone can disagree with the points you raised. However I do think you missed something initially. A battle in BW could span minutes while a battle in SC2 is almost always over in a matter of seconds. Things just happen too quick.
It's too bad because all those skills that you mention and the abilities that required certain responses don't exist in part because there isn't enough time for them. The spells aren't as "epic," and may be less micro-able, but the battles generally end so quickly that it almost wouldn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2nBpe.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/oYQSB.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/H3pTC.png)
