Starcraft 1 vs Starcraft 2

[Cowboy Moment]

The 1v1 map pool has actually become somewhat decent now. One of the few areas where B.net improved with time.

 

[Shancoduff]

I could write a huge essay about SC2's relatively poor competitive RTS mechanics, but I doubt anyone here would read it.

i would

As would I.

 

[Shancoduff]

A nice (but long) post about improving SC2 through new maps and about the of SC2 in general.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242

 

[Zed]

SC2 has been inclining though. The first batch of maps were horrible.

 

[Shancoduff]

SC2 has been inclining though. The first batch of maps were horrible.

Sorry I meant the decline from BW -> SC2, not just SC2 in its own lifespan, which I agree has gotten much better. The changes he's advocating in the post I linked to (less resources per base, more bases) are interesting and actually pretty the gameplay quite a bit.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

SC2 has been inclining though. The first batch of maps were horrible.

Sorry I meant the decline from BW -> SC2, not just SC2 in its own lifespan, which I agree has gotten much better. The changes he's advocating in the post I linked to (less resources per base, more bases) are interesting and actually pretty the gameplay quite a bit.

You'd need to change the MULE, or less resources per base would lead to Terran all-ining every game to capitalize on the advantage of having harvesters that ignore saturation. You'd also need to adjust gas collection somehow, since a higher gas/mineral ration favors Protoss in a major way.

He's absolutely right though, there is no real reason to have more than 3 bases mining minerals in SC2.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

You need to alter Terran in a lot of ways so that they wouldn't all in every game anyway, have them more evenly powered thorough the game instead of early game heavy. Especially since on ladder you'll have no idea in what way your opponent plays as you know nothing about them the most successful TvP strategy should be 111 all-in. What a fun way to play, oh cool it's Protoss BIT BY BIT thx for the free win. Try some of those vaunted Terran late-game compositions though, and you'll be playing a game where you can lose in half a second as your entire army can be evaporated in a single volley or so. To me that's just unacceptable for a strategy game. Of course the Terran army too melts other armies in a flash unless it's some quirky mech composition.

The new maps are better, sure, but for the time I have played SC2 I have never been able to down vote all the maps I don't like because they have been so sucktacular. What the fuck were they thinking with that "backdoor rocks to your main" BS? And now I'm tired of the game anyway so the new maps don't do a thing for me. Also I'm not excited by the new Terran changes in HotS, I hope you'll get new placements so I could start playing with another race but I'm not going to play to lose who knows how many games, running into all that crap you never had to think about with the other race, like the odd places you can cannon rush better or something.

If I could reset and start playing P, try all that neat stalker action and what not, yeah, I might still play but fuck paying 50€ for a new account.

That's a good article by the way. The way how the game has always revolved around low bases play and how the battles are just very brief exchanges because of the high damage is something I didn't so much like in this game, it's like it's designed for people who have zero patience, which it probably is.

 

[Average Manatee]

Wait... Blizzard is REMOVING units in what they are still calling an "expansion"? :hahaohwow:

 

[Cowboy Moment]

I think you get your MMR reset if you don't play for a whole season.

And actually I think something like a proxy 11/11 rax scv all-in is better for ladder TvP, or just a straightforward marine/tank all-in. Everyone seems to do relatively greedy expand builds in PvT, and 1/1/1 isn't especially good against greedy builds.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Well you can switch to something else after you scout a very greedy opening of course. Lol at those nexus first people who think you can get away with that sort of bullshit.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Nexus first is more of a metagame abuse of Terran gasless expand, since you can't punish it without gas, and you need to scout relatively early to confirm it. I don't think there's any reason to use it on ladder, you can throw down your Nexus at like 20-25 supply and still defend everything.

In PvZ, on the other hand, you can Nexus first and come out even or ahead against a 6pool, which is very amusing.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Removal of Mothership is incline, since the unit is retarded and makes 3v3 lag.

why am I unsurprised that attackfighter plays 3v3's

Anyways SC2 had shit story and stuff, but the polish is much better and the strategic depth good, especially considering it hasn't even had expansions.

And being able to control only 12 units in SC1 was frustrating as fuck.

 

[zerotol]

What a fun way to play, oh cool it's Protoss BIT BY BIT thx for the free win.

:D

Anyway the MP of starcraft 2 is quite good, however the singleplayer sucks balls compared to the one from starcraft 1. I can't comment on comparing the mp aspect because i only played sc BGH and now i am only a lowly platinum player () I just don't play enough.

 

[Destroid]

BGH decline 3v3 decline DECLINE

 

[Cowboy Moment]

How can you not have played on iccup with that kind of name, zerotol? This is so very disappointing.

 

[zerotol]

It has nothing to do with zeratul.

 

[Monocause]

A tough comparison, though I'm inclined to point towards SC2 as being the superior game. Sure, the storyline sucks. SP missions can be fun but suck in the big picture as every mission is based on a gimmick; while it's nice to teach players some basic strategies to then advance to PvP, I enjoyed the standard "build a base&destroy the enemy" RTS scheme from SC1 more. Graphics are OK. Sound got worse but not by that of a margin many people claim. BGM is still good, VAs are worse but passable, same with the general sound effects.

Still, in terms of mechanics and options available SC2 is simply the winner for me. I also like that the game is more macro based compared to SC/BW. Take that from a guy who played the first game to death both online and offline.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

SC2 is more macro based than BW? Have I unwittingly shifted to a parallel universe overnight? If I turn on the TV, will I see Herve Caen and Bobby Kotick dance the macarena in a field of dandelions?

 

[Monocause]

No, but you apparently took a British comedy acting class recently. I'm not saying I'm dead sure on this, but based on my experience and the champ shows I watched resource management and map control do seem more important in comparison.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

I dunno about map control. It was important in Brood War, because it allowed you to scout and deny expansions. Nearly everything in that game revolved around expansion timings. In SC2, it's more like if you don't see an attack coming, you often just die instantly, whereas in BW you'd simply find yourself in a worse position. That's why they added watchtowers to the game, without them the game would be insanely volatile, since a Zerg can lose a ZvP because he missed a probe moving out, and Protoss can lose a PvZ because he looked away from his army for ~1 second.

But insofar as "macro" - the ability to produce stuff efficiently - goes, it made much more of a difference in BW. There was a point to expanding beyond 3 bases, and you could often win simply on the strength of your mechanical ability to make a ton of shit. This is not nearly as true in SC2, where unit counters are much harder, and positioning in an engagement makes a huge difference.

Also, BW macro was plainly more difficult because of the inferior UI.

 

[attackfighter]

Map control was a bigger part of SC1. Often times in SC2 both sides relinquish map control and just sit their armies by Xel Naga towers, waiting for their time to push. It's very passive. But in SC1 you had vultures running around laying mines and harassing, dragoons trying to intercept them and a bunch of other stuff going on in other match ups.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

Blizz tried to make SC2 more accessible.

But that's exactly what made SC1 exciting to watch at top level - the inhuman level of skill from players like Jaedong and Bisu, being everywhere at once and doing everything at once.

SC2 just doesn't work as a casual game. It's already over the peak of its hype, I feel. DotA 2 will be the "next big esports thing" after SC1.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Blizz tried to make SC2 more accessible.

But that's exactly what made SC1 exciting to watch at top level - the inhuman level of skill from players like Jaedong and Bisu, being everywhere at once and doing everything at once.

SC2 just doesn't work as a casual game. It's already over the peak of its hype, I feel. DotA 2 will be the "next big esports thing" after SC1.

I don't think trying to make it accessible was their biggest problem. Sure, some of the new units can be seen as an attempt at letting terrible players win, but they subsequently neutered this tendency with their balance changes - so even though they overbuffed Marines because BW mech was too hard, they ended up balancing the game so that you need very good control to make Bio worth your while.

Their main problem, imo, is that they've adopted a "let's put cool shit in, and then balance the numbers accordingly" design philosophy, which leads to terrible results in a competitive multiplayer game, because some ideas are just bad, no matter how cool they seem, and no amount of number tweaking is going to make them work. Warpgates are a prime example. It shouldn't have taken more than an hour in the concept stage for them to realize that the ability to build units anywhere on the map is going to cause problems. Or Spawn Larvae, giving a race extremely cheap production infrastructure, which can also be used to create workers, was bound to lead to silly situations.

On the Spawn Larvae topic, their second big problem is that they simply do not understand competitive BW, the game which is their foundation. For example, they looked at BW Zerg and identified their theme as "the swarm", to which end they gave SC2 Zerg extremely cheap production. This is a complete misunderstanding. In an even BW TvZ, the Zerg can be as far as 50 supply down in the midgame. The swarminess of Zerg armies comes from their units being insanely supply efficient. This was turned on its head completely in SC2, where Zerg can max out at 11 mins by only making Roaches.

SC2 design is a result of darts being thrown at a board, it's good at some points (mostly those inherited from BW), awful at others, and just weird and confusing elsewhere. The fact that the game can sort of be played competitively is a testament to the ingenuity of the pros, more than anything else.

 

[Reject_666_6]

You're looking at SC2's mechanics through your BW glasses. Warp Gates or Vomit Larvae would be game-breaking if they were transplanted into BW and let loose, which seems to be the backbone of your criticism, but in SC2 they work, in large part because of the balancing that you so despise. I'm not seeing any of these 'terrible results' that you mentioned, could you show me a video or a replay of them?

 

[attackfighter]

Spawn larvae allows the Zerg to do economic all-ins, where they bank on the enemy not attacking them while they power out drones. Games where this happens aren't very fun to watch or play and they also involve a large degree of luck. I guess as an example you could look at IntoTheRainbows round of 4 match in the first Gom tournament. Spawn larvae also gives the Zerg an edge in late-game macro, since they can accumulate enough larvae to instantly remake their army after an exchange - I'm not sure if this is as big of a deal though.

Warp-in simply allows the Protoss to do super rushes.

Of course these abilities would break BW, but I don't see how that's a backbone of any argument.