EPTDustin Browder Interview April 2011 - Page 20
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20287 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:55 Snaphoo wrote: Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. Junwi shouldn't be compared to zergbong, who played pro BW to a point much more recent than Junwi (their last notable games are nearly 2 years apart). A much more reasonable comparison would be to Fruitdealer who retired around the same time and was much more successful, albeit not as zergbong. * there is no denying that bw and sc2 are very similar, obviously from the fact that many former BW progamers could switch and play at a pretty high level. major elements of gameplay are not understood? they ARE understood (economy, micro, macro, scouting), but its actually understanding of minor elements of the major elements (most notably exact unit compositions and exact timings) which make the difference between the winners and the losers * it doesnt matter what games looked like in 1999. two entirely different contexts for two different but very similar games. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:55 Snaphoo wrote: Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. I love sc2 fans with their long type essay trying to sink us into believing their game is much superior in everyway citing out all sc2 players who i never heard of probably known at the depths of abyss who people never give a damn at all .Although to them it's hard for them to swallow that all their top stars players are not of Wc3 or Supreme commander like players but all are players from Bw like the one you are talking about NESTEA originally he is from team KT for your information . I am not buying it sorry no matter how many times you come in and just throw a wall of text of madness at me It doesn't dispute the fact that sc2 is broken visibly . | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 18:11 Sawamura wrote: I love sc2 fans with their long type essay trying to sink us into believing their game is much superior in everyway citing out all sc2 players who i never heard of probably known at the depths of abyss who people never give a damn at all .Although to them it's hard for them to swallow that all their top stars players are not of Wc3 or Supreme commander like players but all are players from Bw like the one you are talking about NESTEA originally he is from team KT for your information . I am not buying it sorry no matter how many times you come in and just throw a wall of text of madness at me It doesn't dispute the fact that sc2 is broken visibly . a) This is mostly incoherent ("citing out all sc2 players who i never heard of probably known at the depths of abyss who people never give a damn at all") b) You clearly are trolling, as no SC2 player in this thread has said SC2 is necessarily better than BW. In fact, I've taken pains to say such comparisons are pointless. c) Who cares if top SC2 players were formerly BW players? What relevance does that have to the overall quality of BW? Or SC2? Is it not logical that the most popular RTS in the eSports world would logically produce most of the early champions of its sequel, even if the games were substantially different? | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
I would still love to hear an up-to-date statement about what he thinks about the balance of offense and defense (not in a dps-to-hitpoint term, but in a relation of how difficult it is to attack a player or defend a push) and what he thinks about the importance of positional units such as Siegetanks, Lurkers. I mean that this after all makes the most significant change between Broodwar and SC2 imo, that there were a lot of units in Broodwar which would have a significant advantage after a setup time and in specific positions, which kinda got lost in SC2 (none of it in ZvP and rarely in TvP). Also, if he regrets that there are so way less units with cost-efficiency depending on micro (Reaver-Shuttle, Vulturemines) and that micro as a result of that was mainly boiled down to positioning. This is not supposed to be a rant on SC2, I would just be curious what Blizzard's position on these things. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:55 Snaphoo wrote: Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. Sorry but you either clearly havnt read the replies in the thread, or are deliberately ignoring some of them. There were so many replies to that miserable argument even the Brood War people are asking others to stop repeating the same points all over again. Edit: Comparing yourself with Starcraft 1 wont get you anywhere. Starcraft 1 was a plain old RTS, with little to no international appearances whatsoever. SC2 is claiming itself to be the next generation's leading e-sport, so shouldnt it be compared to the current success, aka Brood War?.. Saying "But im more interesting than Pokemon" doesnt matter squat, we were talking about e-Sport, iirc. (Although to be honest i feel Pokemon is still more exciting a game) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
BW vs WC2. The video "MBS before MBS" is pretty hilarious, but its point is pretty stupid. WC2 is a pretty intersting competitive game, and it requires a lot of skill. There are a few good reasons for playing starcraft and not warcraft 2, despite the "noob friendliness", namely that there is more than one playable race in bw, and there is no half broken unit in it. Innovation in bw. First, one has to understand that today, bw is such a complex game that very few people have the ability to make innovations, and that us the spectators perceive only a fraction of it. I'll quote Ver here : Unfortunately for those who wish to be unique, creating valid strategies in Starcraft since 2000 requires an extremely high level of knowledge that only a few people in the world possess. Sadly, that list probably isn't going to include you or anyone who can read this. Even in the pro scene there are only a select few people per era who really create game-changing strategies and the rest simply copy them. That is simply the truth of how complex SC really is (as well as a result of progamer training regimes). Plus, saying that TvZ is only 1rax expand is not only false, but exactly like saying there is no innovation in chess beause everybody plays 1. e4. Understand : there are many, many subtle variations of it. And while we can't pu our finger on it every time, the result is that every bio TvZ seems to have a pretty different dynamic. Nevertheless, even I D/D- player on iccup can remember a few more innovations on the top of my head. Fanta's build vs Stork in every single game of their final (Flash seems to have tried a variation of Fanta's 5 fact against Bisu in their winner league game, but we might never know what was his gameplan exactly). Hiya Bio answer to 2-base carrier. Another good answer to 12 nex, which seems to be solved except on cross position by mind against Stork. Jaedong seems to have a new way to answer the one-year old idea of MnM pressure at muta harass timing (quite reminiscent of the borrowed ling build he tried in a final, but here he tries to micro in a way in which he forces stim... Yes, an innovation is not only a change in BO in the 5 first minutes). I also saw some clever "cheeses" by Stork against Flash and Jaedong. Stork's build against 1 rax FE (one gate core expo reaver expo). A new kind of vulture-heavy mech transition in TvZ. I'm pretty sure TvT is evolving atm, because it has never seemed so dynamic since Flash's 22-win streak has forced every other terran to dramatically improve in the match-up. But here my knowledge fails me. Bisu seems to have quite a few funny heavy-zealots build recently. Stork early third against hydra (probably needs a bit more storm research). Great funny scouting in ZvZ (:p) I might have to stop here maybe, I've got some other things to say... Oh yeah, and the, how was bw in 1999 or something. I'm not sure, but we can find VODs in 2001, and the comparison here in term of strategy quality is probably extremely skewed in favor of sc2 (because, as it has been repeated, the idea that the best way to play was to play a macro game, ie try to find an optimal way to develop your economy and army, which means cutting corner in your bo etc etc was not really around here before oov, and that thought, while simple, is responsible for most of bw moder development. And I'm not talking about how Nada showed the importance of mechanics, that nobody denies today in sc2, or sAviOr whose gameplan ZvT is a model of thinking in terms of timing, maneuvering and long term gameplan still unparalled and which has a tremendous influence on how people think about build in sc2. And more specifically for instance, the idea of forge fast-expand took year to think of in bw, and sc2 players regularly use it after a year. So please stop saying bw has not helped sc2 in any way...) Well, while the strategy were clearly not optimal, it certainly wasn't blob vs blob. While the Boxer vs Garimto game quoted by a sc2 fan above is not that great (it trumps a big majority of sc2 games imo), it was certainly not that hard to look at the game 5 of that same serie, that qualifies as a ver very good game in my opinion. The games between Boxer and Yellow a bit earlier were also pretty amazing. Boxer vs Blackman comes to mind too. There were some great games in the grr vs HOT finals too.For the rest, I don't know, because thre simply isn't that many sources. pimpest play are pretty interesting to watch too. So bw, while strategically underdevelopped, was still an incredible spectator sport, and there are still pretty big resemblance to today's games. That might explain its success in part, don't you think... (here comes a sc2 part, i'll admit to the possibility of a bias there, but that's really how I feel) Now fast forward to Boxers game today, In his latest serie in GSL, his main game plan seemed to be, "let's reach 200/200 in the best possible conditions". And the only game were there was something else than blob vs blob only in game 3, where boxer made some interesting sttempt at multi-pronged attacks, but was not very successful. I'd say that is representative of the vast majority of the sc2 games i've watched, including highly rated games such as Squirtle vs MVP in GSTL if I'm not mistaken (was it the frst macro game ever or something ?). In conclusion, I'll say a few things. I had hopes for sc2, but it dissapointed me. it might get better or it might not, but I don't really care, because for me "esport development" is not a goal in itself. There are games I find worth watching (bw and... quake, I'm not that closed minded you see, and I'm not a fps player), and I hope that I can continue to watch them in the future in the same way I hope a good TV show or rugby and handball become more popular. And at least, SC2 will have had the positive effect of making it a whole lot easier to explain my love for bw to many people. I just wish SC2 people would not spread misinformations about bw. | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:17 Treemonkeys wrote: I'm sorry but this is just plain ridiculous. Yes I know that SC2 is nowhere near the level of brood war with shit happening all over the map, but you are really exaggerating it, really. In that game the protoss tried to kill boxer early and boxer was trying to drop several times, you're acting like it was a NR 20 game. Oh and the "a-move into the opponents blob" was boxer spotting, scanning, and sniping the observer (the casters missed that part) and then immediately sending in the cloaked ghosts to emp the sentries and then move in with the rest of the army. The irony of your point is that if boxer had actually tried to a-move into that protoss army he would have lost miserably. Once again not the same action that you see in BW, but it's different and it still can be existing to watch. yes i watched the game, and there were some drop attempts by boxer. of course there were things going on during the game, but were there different battles happening in different parts of the map? at least some major harrassments worth noting? skirmishes? guerilla tactics? nope. that's why i didn't mention anything. i didn't notice the sniping, but that still doesn't change the fact after he emped the blob of protoss army, he just a-moved and won. i don't get why you are saying my point is ironic because i clearly said boxer a-moves AFTER he emps the army. my point is, in sc2 we're seeing a PROFESSIONAL gamers, even those who came from a BW background, devolve into the pattern of building up a sizeable ball of army, and attacking each other in one big fight that ends the game pretty much. yes there is harrassment and other stuff going on in the game as well (like proxy warping, etc) but the when it comes to the important major battles, that's pretty much what it is, ball vs ball. and in sc2, everything dies extremely quick so it's extremely anti-climatic. also, the nature of the spells is not fun to watch. when your roaches are force fielded, zerg really can't do shit at that stage. they're just stuck, nothing you can do. when you see a crap load of psi storms, given that it's not awe-inspiring anymore to see multiple storms casted like that and that they're so weak now, it's not that exciting to watch. when you see fungal growth, now the time is so short it's acting just like a insta dmg dealing mini psi storm; think whatever you want but trying convincing yourself that most sc2 games don't end with a blob vs blob fest, i'm sure it won't be easy. | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES49484 Posts
SC2 could be a great game as it is right now if Blizzard stops patching the game every month.Well at least after the upcoming patch. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
When I say remove MBS (to some extent), this should probably not affect Warp Gates too much (having to hotkey all of them or click back and forth really fast would be a huger handicap compared to Terran or Zerg lacking MBS). Warp Gates would be possibly be limited to 4 or 6 per selection instead of 1. So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? A lot of the things (somethings harder than others) are possible using the galaxy editor (the remade SC1 mod for SC2 for example). Though I agree that sadly a lot of the units with interesting mechanics (Vultures, Lurkers, Reavers, etc) were replaced with "a-moving" units such as marauders and colossi for example. I just like to add, a lot of people do not like Force Fields in SC2 (mainly because it prevents the opposing player from doing anything to stop it ) but if smart cast was removed for Force Fields, it'd mean seeing Force Fields used would actually be impressive considering how fast you have to click each Sentry individually and use force fields to create a wall. In that case while someone who is good at Force Fields would prevent the opponent from doing anything, it'd at least be really hard to pull off. (Disclaimer - I'm not stating Protoss is IMBA or anything. I'm taking the results of "people don't like force fields" from a thread/poll in the SC2 section regarding whether they like abilities that take away micro from the opposing player). | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:38 BLinD-RawR wrote: I always wondered why everyone went ball vs ball in SC2 in the first place....I guess lazyness because these days anyone who tries to mass ball gets smashed so hard and positional play does so much better.... SC2 could be a great game as it is right now if Blizzard stops patching the game every month.Well at least after the upcoming patch. Because it is easier that way, if you attack in 1a group your units will automatically form a perfect arc/concave for you, why would you try and do something different?For Protoss especially, the ball attack of Protoss is so powerfull , and if you get flanked you can forcefield and create your own choke, there is no reason at all to do so otherwise save from ghosts. | ||
|
Megakenny
Canada829 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:47 Goldfish wrote: In term of SC2 catering to casuals - What if they made Masters and Grand Masters "harder" by removing smart cast , MBS (to some extent), limit of 12 units in each group, automine, and other stuff (this of course would apply only to Masters and Grand Masters and an option in custom games for practice)? When I say remove MBS (to some extent), this should probably not affect Warp Gates too much (having to hotkey all of them or click back and forth really fast would be a huger handicap compared to Terran or Zerg lacking MBS). Warp Gates would be possibly be limited to 4 or 6 per selection instead of 1. So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? A lot of the things (somethings harder than others) are possible using the galaxy editor (the remade SC1 mod for SC2 for example). Though I agree that sadly a lot of the units with interesting mechanics (Vultures, Lurkers, Reavers, etc) were replaced with "a-moving" units such as marauders and colossi for example. I just like to add, a lot of people do not like Force Fields in SC2 (mainly because it prevents the opposing player from doing anything to stop it ) but if smart cast was removed for Force Fields, it'd mean seeing Force Fields used would actually be impressive considering how fast you have to click each Sentry individually and use force fields to create a wall. In that case while someone who is good at Force Fields would prevent the opponent from doing anything, it'd at least be really hard to pull off. (Disclaimer - I'm not stating Protoss is IMBA or anything. I'm taking the results of "people don't like force fields" from a thread/poll in the SC2 section regarding whether they like abilities that take away micro from the opposing player). So if Iwas a new player to SC2, worked my way up the ladder to Masters after many hours of practice just to have the mechanics change and get stomped into the ground by other players who are used to it would I want to continue playing? Probably not. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:54 Megakenny wrote: So if Iwas a new player to SC2, worked my way up the ladder to Masters after many hours of practice just to have the mechanics change and get stomped into the ground by other players who are used to it would I want to continue playing? Probably not. Yes that would be an issue :\. Though that's just one idea. Having it based on Rank is just an example (but it wouldn't be a good idea I guess due to your example). Another way to do this is to add an option for players to have easier or harder mechanics in the lower leagues but in Masters or higher, it will be enforced to have the harder mechanics. That way they can practice the lack of MBS, smart cast, etc in lower leagues (of course the player will be "handicapped" against players who do not have the "easier mechanics" disabled ). Again though this is just an example of what could be done. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:47 Goldfish wrote: In term of SC2 catering to casuals - What if they made Masters and Grand Masters "harder" by removing smart cast , MBS (to some extent), limit of 12 units in each group, automine, and other stuff (this of course would apply only to Masters and Grand Masters and an option in custom games for practice)? When I say remove MBS (to some extent), this should probably not affect Warp Gates too much (having to hotkey all of them or click back and forth really fast would be a huger handicap compared to Terran or Zerg lacking MBS). Warp Gates would be possibly be limited to 4 or 6 per selection instead of 1. So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? A lot of the things (somethings harder than others) are possible using the galaxy editor (the remade SC1 mod for SC2 for example). Though I agree that sadly a lot of the units with interesting mechanics (Vultures, Lurkers, Reavers, etc) were replaced with "a-moving" units such as marauders and colossi for example. I just like to add, a lot of people do not like Force Fields in SC2 (mainly because it prevents the opposing player from doing anything to stop it ) but if smart cast was removed for Force Fields, it'd mean seeing Force Fields used would actually be impressive considering how fast you have to click each Sentry individually and use force fields to create a wall. In that case while someone who is good at Force Fields would prevent the opponent from doing anything, it'd at least be really hard to pull off. (Disclaimer - I'm not stating Protoss is IMBA or anything. I'm taking the results of "people don't like force fields" from a thread/poll in the SC2 section regarding whether they like abilities that take away micro from the opposing player). This is a bad idea, as you basically have two different games then, that and SC2 lacks much more then lack MBS and automining, even if it had no automining or MBS it would still be an inferior spectator game due to other factors. Throwing MBS and automing out if it won't fix it. | ||
|
xccam
Great Britain1150 Posts
| ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
Point is, we're using this as proof that the devs don't know a damn thing about SCBW. There's no real way you can debate our viewpoint since plain and simple, a lot of us were around in SC2 before any of you were. Most of us were around during the beta. The SC2 fanboys here are too recently-joined to even have been a part of that. Point-and-case, we know more about your game than you apparently, while simultaneously understanding BW much deeper because we obsess over it in a fashion SC2 people do not. Sorry to say, but BW was a hardcore game because only obsessive people ever learn anything in it. You can't just become an "A" by playing casually. Also, stop stealing units from C&C3 (Banshee=Orca). | ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:59 Goldfish wrote: Yes that would be an issue :\. Though that's just one idea. Having it based on Rank is just an example (but it wouldn't be a good idea I guess due to your example). Another way to do this is to add an option for players to have easier or harder mechanics in the lower leagues but in Masters or higher, it will be enforced to have the harder mechanics. That way they can practice the lack of MBS, smart cast, etc in lower leagues (of course the player will be "handicapped" against players who do not have the "easier mechanics" disabled ). Again though this is just an example of what could be done. I think it'd just be better to keep the "easier" mechanics such as automine/mbs/smartcast in place, but then add incentive to do things manually.. like commanding a worker to mine manually vs automining will let the worker mine 5-10% faster, or if you smartcast there is a 1-2 second delay between each cast (but not for every spell imo, FF could have no delay but Storm would have it). Then again, if they did this there'd be a lot of whiners saying how it doesn't "add anything to the spectator value" : P Haven't really read this thread through, but I guess I'll spend some time reading through it to see what's going on lol hmm couple things I'd like to address before I knock out: first of all, the argument that an easier interface will lead to more multitasking with multiple battles around the map. First of all, that's clearly not the case in SC2 as of now (due to unit/race designs), and SC2 won't ever have more multitasking that BW does already. Progamers in BW are already multitasking at human limits, giving them an easier interface won't give these BW progamers any more ability to multitask because SBS/notautomine/nosmartcasting/control groups are simply thoughtless second nature to these mechanical beasts. And to compare the first years of SC1 to SC2 is ridiculous. SC1 had almost nothing to draw upon from prior games, whereas SC2 got standardized fairly quickly due to drawing upon concepts from BW's strategic developments. SC1 Vanilla is more fun to watch than SC2 anyways  Too many people dismiss SC1 Vanilla's depth, when it's actually pretty damn interesting even without those key units from BW. | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On May 01 2011 22:19 ArvickHero wrote: And to compare the first years of SC1 to SC2 is ridiculous. SC1 had almost nothing to draw upon from prior games, whereas SC2 got standardized fairly quickly due to drawing upon concepts from BW's strategic developments. SC1 Vanilla is more fun to watch than SC2 anyways Too many people dismiss SC1 Vanilla's depth, when it's actually pretty damn interesting even without those key units from BW.Vanilla and SC2 both have massive balance issues and are equally unexciting when it comes to battles. I don't know what depth you're talking about but I played vanilla longer than most people and it didn't have much of it. Broodwar changed everything and I think HotS has the same chance if they don't fuck it up. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On May 01 2011 23:08 Skew wrote: Vanilla and SC2 both have massive balance issues and are equally unexciting when it comes to battles. I don't know what depth you're talking about but I played vanilla longer than most people and it didn't have much of it. Broodwar changed everything and I think HotS has the same chance if they don't fuck it up. "Ok Blizzard i'll pay a bunch of money for your game even though I think its terrible and then later I'll pay a bunch more money for your attempts to fix it becuase a long time ago you sucked at making games balanced before the expansions also." blizzard fail = you giving blizzard more money really dude? YAY $100 spent from me and everyone loyal to esports straight to blizzard! Everyone support sc2 and esports in the west so i can feel less like a loser when I say I watch video games on my computer! | ||
|
avatarofjustice
Barbados24 Posts
| ||
| ||
