|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 07:59 darmousseh wrote:
I actually feel the opposite, I was quite disappointed initially with sc2, but it's getting better all the time. The macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad, but I don't think macro is everything. Anyone can just make workers and bases, and I feel like that's how it should be. What should separate the pros is their micro, decision making, positioning, scouting, dropping, and harassing. In a sense it's similar to golf. Golf is not that hard to learn and most people can become scratch golfers if they try. The difference between a pro and an amateur might be 2 missed putts. SC2 in fact seems to punish mis microing significantly more than bw so the best players aren't those that make the best decisions, but those that don't falter at all in their macro and unit control. Strategies come and go and strategical players will win some matches, but in the end, those that make 0 mistakes will win. SC2 is like, imagine if everyone in BW knew how to macro decently. I think it's a good thing because it means less bonjwas and more competition. At the same time, we can see that a small group of players is above the rest, but nothing like BW and as a spectator, that is exciting. No one wants to see one player dominate all the time.
The point is - as you even said yourself "the macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad". Period.
They DON'T do this in SC2, that's my concern.
To take BW as an example again - do you think it required less micro, decision making and positioning than SC2?
No, the exact opposite is the case.
So this means nowadays you do have less (almost none at all) macro and less micro.
In fact your whole statement seems kind of biased, because you obviously do prefer (to watch?) micro over macro for excitement / skill value.
Do you think real macro took no skill?
Or do you actually think that "macro" in SC2 still takes a lot of skill? I don't know, really.
And if you think less bonjwa's is good.... ughhhhhhhhhh, seriously.
BW needed those Boxers, Nadas, OOv's and Saviors.
And also, all of them fell apart at the one or other point - in fact you have 3 people struggling to become "the next bonjwa" since 2-3 years in BW right now, each having his respective prime (flash just recently and even sicker than Bisu/Jaedong, but don't forget Bisu's dominance during the Golden Age) - how in the hell can you call this boring?
"Imagine BW if everyone knew how to macro decently."
Ya right, like that's not the case for the Korean Pro's in BW.
In fact it is just as you said - micro and decision making is what does the difference. Just that there is a LOOOOOOOOOT more room for mistakes than in SC2. In BW you could turn a battle so heavily into your favour that your opponent was forced to either sacrifice macro time or mismicro which was a game deciding factor as well.
Macro into action, drama, multitasking³³³³³³³³, thousands of apm dwindling around (and not being 95% put to waste cause SC2 does anything for you anyway), one slight mistake can be the end... waiting for that stroke of genius that might hit Bisu or Flash ... I don't know how that can be less interesting than "oh lets watch a 200 vs 200 ball in which both players can not tell what the fuck is actually going on nor do have to multitask to macro meanwhile so they can focus only on micro to throw up some storms and forcefields, and look at how nicely they spread out their ball before it clumped once again during the battle!"
Seriously?
I like SC2, I really do. But it just doesn't leave me in awe when I watch it.
Maybe that's just me being an former "professional" BW gamer (as far as that goes, being non Korean), but really I don't feel like "I can't do this" if I watch that.
I realize there's a lot of factors in SC2 too, they're just less than in BW and a lot lot lot more subtle, which makes it less exciting to watch.
Just think of this one mine field you ran into because of a drop happening at your natural and you panic'ed.
SC2 simply does not have such things that's require constant attention like mines, lurkers etc - but then again - there is a topic regarding this issue and I'm superbly drifting away right now.
Check out mahnini's thread if you're actually interested in that.
|
On April 20 2011 07:30 Smurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 07:28 infinity2k9 wrote:
You can't just dismiss peoples opinions with 'nostalgia'. We continue to watch pro BW right now, and it continues to evolve and surprise us... this isn't based from memories. This is happening now. Thank you taking my post to extremes and boiling it down meaninglessness.
How is it taking it to extremes. Don't use word nostalgia if you don't actually mean it; You're claiming peoples memories of both BW and SC2 games is tainted by some inherent bias even though both games are active right now and what people are saying is their current feelings on the matter. The guy gave his detailed opinions on a few aspects of the game he preferred in BW such as sound, and you just brushed it aside with your comment.
His comments are fairly objective, many people have commented on the excellent sound design, the fact that you can tell what's going on in a BW game very easily with your eyes closed. Things like crackling attack noises are very much muted in comparison now. And his point about players not having their own styles is quite true as well, the BeSt style macro player is not reall possible anymore, neither is things like Jangbi storms.
However you do have players like Goody who stand out based on their builds, however this will probably change in time when things are found to be less or more viable with more and more experience. It's a bit lacking compared to prehaps, the skill and uniqueness of Leta's 2port wraith compared to everyone else for 1 example. Obviously people are just going to bring up the usual 'give it time' argument for this aspect though.
|
On April 20 2011 08:21 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 07:59 darmousseh wrote:
I actually feel the opposite, I was quite disappointed initially with sc2, but it's getting better all the time. The macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad, but I don't think macro is everything. Anyone can just make workers and bases, and I feel like that's how it should be. What should separate the pros is their micro, decision making, positioning, scouting, dropping, and harassing. In a sense it's similar to golf. Golf is not that hard to learn and most people can become scratch golfers if they try. The difference between a pro and an amateur might be 2 missed putts. SC2 in fact seems to punish mis microing significantly more than bw so the best players aren't those that make the best decisions, but those that don't falter at all in their macro and unit control. Strategies come and go and strategical players will win some matches, but in the end, those that make 0 mistakes will win. SC2 is like, imagine if everyone in BW knew how to macro decently. I think it's a good thing because it means less bonjwas and more competition. At the same time, we can see that a small group of players is above the rest, but nothing like BW and as a spectator, that is exciting. No one wants to see one player dominate all the time. The point is - as you even said yourself "the macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad". Period. They DON'T do this in SC2, that's my concern. To take BW as an example again - do you think it required less micro, decision making and positioning than SC2? No, the exact opposite is the case. So this means nowadays you do have less (almost none at all) macro and less micro. In fact your whole statement seems kind of biased, because you obviously do prefer (to watch?) micro over macro for excitement / skill value. Do you think real macro took no skill? Or do you actually think that "macro" in SC2 still takes a lot of skill? I don't know, really. And if you think less bonjwa's is good.... ughhhhhhhhhh, seriously. BW needed those Boxers, Nadas, OOv's and Saviors. And also, all of them fell apart at the one or other point - in fact you have 3 people struggling to become "the next bonjwa" since 2-3 years in BW right now, each having his respective prime (flash just recently and even sicker than Bisu/Jaedong, but don't forget Bisu's dominance during the Golden Age) - how in the hell can you call this boring? "Imagine BW if everyone knew how to macro decently." Ya right, like that's not the case for the Korean Pro's in BW. In fact it is just as you said - micro and decision making is what does the difference. Just that there is a LOOOOOOOOOT more room for mistakes than in SC2. In BW you could turn a battle so heavily into your favour that your opponent was forced to either sacrifice macro time or mismicro which was a game deciding factor as well. Macro into action, drama, multitasking³³³³³³³³, thousands of apm dwindling around (and not being 95% put to waste cause SC2 does anything for you anyway), one slight mistake can be the end... waiting for that stroke of genius that might hit Bisu or Flash ... I don't know how that can be less interesting than "oh lets watch a 200 vs 200 ball in which both players can not tell what the fuck is actually going on nor do have to multitask to macro meanwhile so they can focus only on micro to throw up some storms and forcefields, and look at how nicely they spread out their ball before it clumped once again during the battle!" Seriously? I like SC2, I really do. But it just doesn't leave me in awe when I watch it. Maybe that's just me being an former "professional" BW gamer (as far as that goes, being non Korean), but really I don't feel like "I can't do this" if I watch that. I realize there's a lot of factors in SC2 too, they're just less than in BW and a lot lot lot more subtle, which makes it less exciting to watch.Just think of this one mine field you ran into because of a drop happening at your natural and you panic'ed. SC2 simply does not have such things that's require constant attention like mines, lurkers etc - but then again - there is a topic regarding this issue and I'm superbly drifting away right now. Check out mahnini's thread if you're actually interested in that.
I agree with the part about more subtle differences, but that's what happens in a game where the skill ceiling is lower. In chess the difference between a 2000 and 2400 is so subtle, you wouldn't know unless you were told, however, the difference between say Federer and some amateur is huge to the point where it's boring to watch. Every sport obviously has it's player that is better than everyone else, but every sport also has a huge # of pros that can beat those top players at any time. The fact that someone has a > 80% win rate seems rather insane and is not interesting. There is a similar problem in basketball right now, some of the top pros are complaining about the competitiveness of the league and therefore we can expect contraction in the next few years.
About the macro, obviously macro was significantly harder in scbw than in sc2, but there is still a huge difference between a master's macro and a pros.
In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote:
In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro".
This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg"
That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out.
The whole game is hit or miss.
If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either.
Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either.
In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either.
There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree...
Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't.
If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart.
And this is just one example out of 100.
Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me.
|
Croatia9454 Posts
Nice post, I agree completely. I also just have to quote this post once more, because it's so good ^^
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2011 06:57 erin[go]bragh wrote:It's nice that SC2 is more accessible than BW was, but from a spectator point of view, IMO as of now it makes a pretty bad esport. Macro is too easy, as such there are no "macro players" i.e "omg how did BeSt loose his entire army and already has another one sitting at his rally!" because everyone is a macro player. There are no micro players i.e "omg mundang toss! perfect storrrrrms!" because you no longer need to clone anything. IMO this contributes to the "no good player personalities" as you mentioned because theres very few ways for players to identify themselves. Units are unexciting. Seeing a Colossus melt a million Hydras was cool the first 2 times, but then it gets old. This has been beaten to death, but its a terrible replacement for the Reaver. There is also nothing exciting about seeing two 200/200 armies clash, have the players remacro back to 200/200, and clash again. Not all games turn out this way, but most do. Unit AI pathing is something I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned more. As far as I'm concerned, it's SC2's biggest turn off. What I mean is, when you saw a Zerg army pour across a map, You looked at that mini-map and said "Holy SHIT thats a lot of dots!" Edit: ![[image loading]](http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/906/rovjulyrockay4.gif) When a Protoss Zealot/Goon force charged a Tank line, the observer is darting all over the battlefield as lots spread out and cut into the line. In SC2, it doesnt matter if you have 5 units or 500. Everything just travels in a huge fucking ball. And I find it all very unepic. Another thing I'm surprised I haven't seen complained about more. Sounds! Maybe its because I've listened to so much BW commentary in a language I can't understand, but I use a lot of audio clues to know whats happening in game. You KNOW when a group of marines stim, and it sounds bad ass. "PSHHHH AHH THATS THE STUFF" What do you get in SC2? A weak little sound that sounds like a midget fart. Yawn. Science Vessels are a very important unit in TvZ. When one dies, it blows up in fabulous fashion and with a loud, distinguishable sound, so you know "oh shit he lost an expensive unit!" In SC2, someone could kill 5 Ravens and you'd hardly notice throughout the rest of the cluster fuck going on. The list goes on with epic sound queues being replaced by wussy ones. All the way from Goons dying (dont even get me STARTED on how awesome blue goo was to know how bad that attack really went) to the Archons attack sound (BEEFY in BW, dwarf slap in SC2.) I could go on, but I hate being such a downer. Bottom line is, it's nice that SC2 is easier to play because it isn't so mechanically demanding. But for me anyway, it fails as a spectator sport. Compared to watching BW, getting an adrenaline rush watching SC2 is as hard as getting a hard on watching grass grow.
On an unrelated note, let me know when you want to practice for isl showmatch 
|
That's why I said lots.
MVP is the only player who left while he could have made a pro league roster. -.-
Every other player was slumping including July.
|
On April 20 2011 09:51 StarStruck wrote:
That's why I said lots.
MVP is the only player who left while he could have made a pro league roster. -.-
Every other player was slumping including July.
Could have made? MVP and Iron were both A-teamers and had regular appearances in proleague.
edit, yeah true. Iron not so much. 
|
Iron was not regularly appearing in proleague.
MVP only by virtue of us not having any other terrans at the time. And because he's a boss.
|
On April 20 2011 09:16 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote:
In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me.
People say that whole "You can beat 6 - 7 lurkers with Zealots" all the time, but there's a lot of the other type of situation in BW, too. And SC2 has situations where micro matters - people just don't build those units often. It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false.
Also, saying the macro is "easy" when the current group of pro gamers is banking 1k/1k on 3 base with sub-capped armies seems pretty weird to me. Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. The only difference now is that SC2's bad macro is probably 100% better than BW's bad macro. At the top level, it's nearly identical - you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone.
That said, it'd be nice if Fungal was a stronger Plague. But keep in mind BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. The only real complaint is probably that FF should be a higher energy cost spell so it doesn't go away but rather you can't cast almost infinite forcefields whenever you want during the early and mid games.
I feel like you're missing a lot of the fun things that SC2 does have. Saying that players are great when, frankly, they aren't is kinda unfair to SC2.
|
|
|
On April 20 2011 22:50 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 22:36 ShadowWolf wrote:
you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone.
Since when TheWind and By.Sair were top bw players ?
That was my point, entirely. They weren't top players now and they didn't become better players after switching to SC2. Their macro was mediocre/bad by comparison to top progamers in Sc1 and it's still not good in SC2.
|
Russian Federation327 Posts
It seems like Blizzards failed to understand the good sides of their own game =)
The idea behind SC2 was quite simple & good:
- less mechanic, so more players will be able to play
- more emphasis dynamic battles and tactic & strategy
Sound nice, dosn't it?
But there are some problems:
1. Macro & Micro not just mechanic but another resource like gas or minerals. Which brings a lot of tricks to distract your opponent and consume his APM (e.g. Flash vs Best with insane drop-play harass). Mechanical elements can play big role in the tactical sense and throwing it off can hurt gameplay a lot.
2. The RTS games are about APM + strategy, if you want strategy with easy mechanic then you better check turn-based wargames. You can't put whole gameplay's weight on the single horse called strategy, it is just not enough for RTS. I think in this sense SC2 is similar to cute pony: quite lovely, kids like it but not suitable for horse-race.
Small maps make situation even worser and this big-whole-lotta-special-effects battles not fun to watch.
3. From esport perspective triumph of SC2 and it's funeral are the same thing.
Chef mentioned it in his post (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=214462¤tpage=2#22). It is impossible to raise new generation of S players for game with short lifespan. One major release each year means no Bisu/Jaedong for you. Stability is the key for turning esport from underground to legitimate stuff. If Blizzard really cares about esport as they told, they should make some SCBW reissue with win7 compatibility and better resolution.
Can SC2 be a good game? -Yes, but esport is different matters.
|
On April 20 2011 22:36 ShadowWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 09:16 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote:
In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me. People say that whole "You can beat 6 - 7 lurkers with Zealots" all the time, but there's a lot of the other type of situation in BW, too. And SC2 has situations where micro matters - people just don't build those units often. It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false. Also, saying the macro is "easy" when the current group of pro gamers is banking 1k/1k on 3 base with sub-capped armies seems pretty weird to me. Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. The only difference now is that SC2's bad macro is probably 100% better than BW's bad macro. At the top level, it's nearly identical - you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone. That said, it'd be nice if Fungal was a stronger Plague. But keep in mind BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. The only real complaint is probably that FF should be a higher energy cost spell so it doesn't go away but rather you can't cast almost infinite forcefields whenever you want during the early and mid games. I feel like you're missing a lot of the fun things that SC2 does have. Saying that players are great when, frankly, they aren't is kinda unfair to SC2.
I want to pinpoint a specific quote from this.
"It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false."
The hard counter system does indeed exist in sc2 where it doesn't exist in broodwar. For example, In broodwar a vulture doesn't counter a dragoon, but with proper micro a vulture can kill a dragoon. In sc2, a hellion will never kill a stalker. You can give the control of the hellion to slayers_boxer and give the stalker to a 3 year old child, and the child will win.
|
Russian Federation327 Posts
Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well.
Of course their macro is bad, coz Diamond = D+
BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc.
Actually you can run from EMP =)
And Stasis is mostly used against sieged tanks, so no point to micro anyway.
I don't think you arguments are good, even if there are few bad things in SCBW it doesn't defend SC2 position at all.
I like FF in SC2, but it is not enough to change the game-feeling from a bruteforce clash to elegance fencing.
|
On April 21 2011 01:36 ReGreTT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 22:36 ShadowWolf wrote:On April 20 2011 09:16 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote:
In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me. People say that whole "You can beat 6 - 7 lurkers with Zealots" all the time, but there's a lot of the other type of situation in BW, too. And SC2 has situations where micro matters - people just don't build those units often. It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false. Also, saying the macro is "easy" when the current group of pro gamers is banking 1k/1k on 3 base with sub-capped armies seems pretty weird to me. Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. The only difference now is that SC2's bad macro is probably 100% better than BW's bad macro. At the top level, it's nearly identical - you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone. That said, it'd be nice if Fungal was a stronger Plague. But keep in mind BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. The only real complaint is probably that FF should be a higher energy cost spell so it doesn't go away but rather you can't cast almost infinite forcefields whenever you want during the early and mid games. I feel like you're missing a lot of the fun things that SC2 does have. Saying that players are great when, frankly, they aren't is kinda unfair to SC2. I want to pinpoint a specific quote from this. "It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false." The hard counter system does indeed exist in sc2 where it doesn't exist in broodwar. For example, In broodwar a vulture doesn't counter a dragoon, but with proper micro a vulture can kill a dragoon. In sc2, a hellion will never kill a stalker. You can give the control of the hellion to slayers_boxer and give the stalker to a 3 year old child, and the child will win.
I agree, Regrett, very good point. In SC2, a hellion will never kill a goon 1 on 1, not even if it's Boxer vs. a 3 year old.
To the OP, great blog post. I agree whole-heartily, and it's not like I hate SC2 (in fact, I may like it more if it didn't have Starcraft in the name. It's sort of a disappointment with it), I just want it to be a better game than it is. Heck, what would be really awesome is if all the money being pooled into SC2 went to BW, but I know that would be extremely hard to pull off.
Just as long as Blizzard doesn't try to balance the game to appease the people in silver ranks, I'll trust that, given time, it may become a game worthy of the name Starcraft.
|
The problem with the concept that "expansions will improve situation", "patches will make it better" is that those arguments misunderstand the goal of blizzard. The goal is NOT to make a high skill ceiling brutally hard to micro game(aka bw terran mnm, protoss reavers, zerg lategame drop style). Why? because that is frustrating to casuals, who are the bulk source of revenue. They would get angry that they will never be able to use their units to a decent degree, so the game has to be dumbed down to suit them(aka sc2 style protoss ball, colossus, sc2 mmm). That is how business works.
|
On April 21 2011 05:07 xarthaz wrote:
The problem with the concept that "expansions will improve situation", "patches will make it better" is that those arguments misunderstand the goal of blizzard. The goal is NOT to make a high skill ceiling brutally hard to micro game(aka bw terran mnm, protoss reavers, zerg lategame drop style). Why? because that is frustrating to casuals, who are the bulk source of revenue. They would get angry that they will never be able to use their units to a decent degree, so the game has to be dumbed down to suit them(aka sc2 style protoss ball, colossus, sc2 mmm). That is how business works.
Eh, I always think that it won't hurt the game too much to add in a few overpowered, hard-to micro units similar to the Reaver+Shuttle in addition to weaker, easy-to-micro alternatives such as the Colossus, even if they may overlap in unit roles. The game is fine for casuals as is, and I think it would not harm the casuals to throw in a few more "spicy" units into the mix that would be fun to play with but excruciatingly hard to control at a high level.
Yes, Blizzard wants to cater to casuals in addition to hardcore players. However, I think they already pleased the former to an acceptable degree, and with the game released with tons of feedback emanating from the community, they at least have more tangible evidence of what the community wants for an e-sport. Considering how well-received WC3: Frozen Throne was with its myriad of changes, I personally wouldn't be so pessimistic about the future.
|
SC2 simply lacks strong personalities.
The biggest problem I see is creating new strong personalities in SC2.
Will there ever be a Jaedong-esque revolution (if you don't think he did one, check out how ZvP in BW was played 4 years ago and laugh.) going on for Zerg in SC2?
Might be, but even if it will probably be less amazing than what JD did.
Why?
Because JD's "revolution" was based on so much personal SKILL that it just left people in awe.
Sure, you can have 450 apm in SC2 and be really good - but you still would not be so much better than everyone else (playing Zerg) than a Jaedong is (or was, not sure bout that atm).
What? Compared to BW, SC2 has way more strong personalities. The foreign scene will always have more drama/BM than the korean scene and now with SC2 the foreign scene is actually relevant. If you are pointing out a problem imo it's with SC2, not a problem with the people who play it. It's possible there is room for the kind of personal skill that you are coveting in SC2 (or that the expansions will create it) but right now I agree that there isn't and it makes SC2 not very fun to watch.
|
The idea is this: a dominant strategy game consists of multiple facets. ie strategy combined with mechanics combined with timings etc.
SC2 has managed to almost completely nullify the mechanics part of it, leaving it at the same level of many other strategy games where your brain does most of the work. No one is impressed by a large group of free thinkers, ask Israel. The fact is, comparing BW to SC2 is physically impossible not only in development but in the "RTS" category itself due to its insane lack of mechanical (aka physical) playing ability.
Another downside of that comparison is that SC2 does not have a community. That is one thing you can compare to BW, where BW immediately had a community. SC2 is just a bunch of tournaments with a lack of overall organization, it's like the sponsors are playing in a casino. The house will always win as they dump their money into something that will never produce anything for them, besides money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
