Starcraft, played at a high level, on a balanced map

[Dark Matter]

No muta micro? Is this a joke?

Is it possible to use mutas to the same effect in SC2 as this?

I concede to most of your points Dark Matter, except the ones about the "skill-level" of micro and that SC2 is more of a clusterfuck that Brood War.

While I haven't played much Brood War online, I've watched both it and SC2 a lot. What makes SC2 a better game to watch for me, is the fact that well-placed clicks with some spell can often mean a huge difference in Brood War, nullifying an opponent's macro. This is less so in SC2. Admittedly because stuff has been taken out; but contrary to popular Codex opinion this is not an arbitrarily "bad" thing.

It's part of the game's tactics. Yes, it is possible to take out a huge army of hydras with just a couple of well-placed psi-storms but that's what makes BW exciting. Even when you're ahead in a game, you're required to have the utmost focus and awareness, because a few moments of carelessness can negate any advantage you have. However, it is not based on blind luck. If you get totally owned by a couple of spells, then that's largely due to your own failing. One should never be in a position where they can potentially lose the game just because of a couple of well-placed spells. In ZvP, zerg needs to learn to snipe templars with mutas, get a proper surround with his hydras rather than clumping them, and not engage the Protoss in narrow chokes. If zerg masters these skills, he should never lose a game simply because of a couple of well-placed storms. This example can be applied to just about every other unit/spell in BW.

I find SC2 a lot worse in this regard. In BW, the spells were powerful but at the same time, they're difficult to use and far easier to evade. Compare SC2 storms with BW storms. In SC2, all the units clump in a ball making it easy for the opponent to hit your entire army with storms and dodging them effectively is almost impossible unless you are extremely good at predicting exactly where he'll throw down the storms. To compensate for that, they made all the spells a lot weaker. The end result is a game that is much less exciting and much more predictable.

EDIT: Oh, and as an additional note: Didn't most of the units you refer to make their way into the game with Brood War, and not SC1 stand-alone? If so, isn't it possible that SC2 is solid base upon which more of that you like so much will be constructed?

Well, the argument here is based on what SC2 is, not what it could be. Besides, I don't buy this excuse. Blizzard had 10 years since BW, SC2 should have been an improvement on BW in every possible way. Just because it's a sequel and not an expansion doesn't excuse it for having bland and uninteresting unit design. Blizzard just took the easy way out, they removed interesting units like lurkers because they were too lazy to balance them properly.

 

[attackfighter]

While I haven't played much Brood War online, I've watched both it and SC2 a lot. What makes SC2 a better game to watch for me, is the fact that well-placed clicks with some spell can often mean a huge difference in Brood War, nullifying an opponent's macro. This is less so in SC2. Admittedly because stuff has been taken out; but contrary to popular Codex opinion this is not an arbitrarily "bad" thing.

BW games don't come down to a single battle, unless it's some sort of early rush. Losing an army of hydras to siege tanks or losing 2 control groups of marines to a dark swarm doesn't decide the game; it puts you at a disadvantage but as there are dozens of fights to come you have enough chances to outplay your opponent and negate those losses. How can you say that your average 20 minute game is 'decided by a few clicks'?

And even though spells are more powerful in SC1, that simply puts more importance to the positioning of your units (not clumping tanks, not getting trapped by dark swarm, etc.) and adds depth to your decision making. It also makes the battles more exciting to watch; who doesn't like seeing a group of hydras exploded from mines and tanks; a zerg roll over a nearly impenetrable terran battleline through good defiler use; or a reaver drop and nearly kill 20 SCVs except they just managed to escape in time? It adds exitement to the game because the result of a skirmish or battle arent decided until it actually unfolds: compare this to SC2 where you know the Protoss is going to win/lose cause he has enough Collusus or too few Immortals.

line of arguments), I still prefer SC2. Perhaps a compromise is possible though; my main beef is with hot-key spells that, as I say, have the potential to nullify an opponent's macro (because his, in theory, superior game-plan is wiped out by well-placed click). The compromise could thus be the same nerf that these spells have had in SC2, backed up by units that abide different rules (Reapers cliff-jumps are a good example - there's just not enough of these unit-varieties in SC2, and most of them have no long-term purpose, except for harass).

Even an amateur gamer can macro perfectly, it's the importance of micro that draws his attention away and makes him mess up. Having such low importance on map control, positioning and micro makes 'pro' SC2 a huge bore to watch. Also more rules=/='game variety' - having gimmick units like reapers doesn't add anything except gimmick strategies, hence why reapers are underused except in a small timeframe at the start.

Perhaps I know less than you about the subject at hand, but I do know from watching tons of videos, and following Day9 quite close, that I like watching SC2 games more.

Watching videos doens't mean anything. I've watched TONS of SC1 videos via TLVoDs, CholeraSC, Tasteless and Day9 (the fat loser you mentioned), but that hasn't made me good at the game, or atleast not enough to appreciate how great Jaedong really is at mutalisk control, or how Flash is able to push a tiny bit sooner thanks to the subtle changes he made to his build. You mention how great you find the macro game, but due to your lack of in-game experience I doubt you understand anything more than the basics.

EDIT: Oh, and as an additional note: Didn't most of the units you refer to make their way into the game with Brood War, and not SC1 stand-alone? If so, isn't it possible that SC2 is solid base upon which more of that you like so much will be constructed?

And no one played vanilla SC1 competitively, yet WoWfags are busy slobbering all over vanilla SC2

 

[yaster]

Units clumping together also limits the importance of flanking, even in high lvl games players just seem to move they blog against enemy blob, lack of Tank overkill also makes it not important how you place them (as long as they cover are that you want obviously).

Flanking with zerglings seems pretty common. I've seen lings taking down colossus that way so...

Either way - the players are bound to find some way of gaining advantage over opponent if they want to win. And as we know micro is nerfed so other aspects have to take precedence. Looks to me like flanking (and general tactics) could be one of those aspects. Having perfect arc of single-line all-attacking hydras vs having 3 lines of the same hydras with you have to move under enemy fire closer so they could fire simultaneously. Seems like the player who flanked would've advantage and would win battle, kinda like importance of making arcs in lings vs lings battles in BW.

It looks to me like players currently aren't particularly great at playing SC2. They rarely take advantages of many little things, they have little idea when to push, europeans usually plays very passively and koreans play like crazy, nearly constantly attacking on the other hand. It's clear to me that the game needs some time to mature. It is hard to tell how it would turn up in the end - the only predictions I've seen are 100% based on BW like it was exactly the same game, without looking for things that could potentially replace the missing aspects (i mean, god damn it, somehow all this excess of apm have to be used). Either way SC2 is already way more enjoyable than Warcraft3 and is alongside BW the only watchable esport. How it fares in direct comparison to BW? Time only tells, now it's to soon, it was just released...

and there are 2 expansion packs coming...

There is 1-0 cliff advantage if you see enemy unit on the cliff then you have no penalty. In BW units missed some % of the time when firing up cliff.

Therefore quickly killing the spotter is essential for good defense - looks like micro potential to me.

 

[Antihero]

It might be worth pointing out when you talk about better micro in BW if you're also referring to using game quirks - which is valid enough though, but it doesn't seem like it was actually designed for it originally. This besides needing better placement, awareness, and not having these "smart/multiple" builds and casts like in SC2, or control group size.

I'm pretty rusty at BW, so I may be completely misremembering, but quirky things like attacking on the run with vulture patrol micro, lurkers targeting things in the FoW so you can better ambush more of the enemy, or grouping mutalisks in with an overlord or larva so they stack, and something about the direction you turn them in when flying so they don't decelerate (I'm pretty fuzzy about that now).

 

[Dark Matter]

It might be worth pointing out when you talk about better micro in BW if you're referring to using game quirks - which is valid enough though, but it doesn't seem like it was actually designed for it originally. This besides not having these "smart/multiple" builds and casts like in SC2, or control group size.

I'm pretty rusty at BW, so I may be completely misremembering, but quirky things like attacking on the run with vulture patrol micro, lurkers targetting things in the FoW so you can better ambush more of the enemy, or grouping mutalisks in with an overlord or larva so they stack, and something about the direction you turn them in when flying so they don't decelerate (I'm pretty fuzzy about that now).

So? All those cute little tricks you can pull off are part of BW's charm.

 

[Grunker]

Dark Matter and attackfighter: The real problems seems to be that we disagree about what the game should be about. I downright disagree that micro makes the game more interesting to watch, for me, it's the exact opposite.

You might postulate that "everyone can get macro right", and perhaps it's true to the extent that everyone can use a build order and get things right in the beginning, but deciding how to macro in mid- and late-game is rarely something you can wiggle out of with build orders taken online or shit like that. And that's what I like watching, someone who plans so well into or out of a situation that he ends up winning. Not some korean on an adrenaline rush who squeezes out 250APM, casts more spells better than the opposition, and wins that way. I don't like bringing up TheLittleOne since crowd-favorites are usually hated on the Codex, but my reason for liking him is the fact that he can pull seemingly insane decisions off.

And I simply like this aspect of the game more; decision-making and the consequences of those decisions (aka strategy) instead of who controls the games micro-mechanics best.

So we can agree to disagree, but I don't concede to the point that micro by definition makes the game more interesting or strategic. Indeed I still hold to the exact opposite.

 

[Antihero]

It might be worth pointing out when you talk about better micro in BW if you're referring to using game quirks - which is valid enough though, but it doesn't seem like it was actually designed for it originally. This besides not having these "smart/multiple" builds and casts like in SC2, or control group size.

So? All those cute little tricks you can pull off are part of BW's charm.

Right, but it just seems like there's a lot of complaining about the lack of it in SC2 sometimes (maybe not in this thread). So never mind.

Everybody finds something different exciting - I just can't give much of a damn about gimmicky microing no matter how much skill is actually involved. Again, I hardly followed the BW scene, but it seemed like there were a crop of stalwarts but many more "few extra strategy wonders" who got countered and then faded away.

I'm not saying SC2 is more strategical either - if anything, some retarded strategies can be all too effective.

 

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter and attackfighter: The real problems seems to be that we disagree about what the game should be about. I downright disagree that micro makes the game more interesting to watch, for me, it's the exact opposite.

The real problem is that SC2 is inferior to BW in every way possible, not just by its lack of micro.

You might postulate that "everyone can get macro right", and perhaps it's true to the extent that everyone can use a build order and get things right in the beginning, but deciding how to macro in mid- and late-game is rarely something you can wiggle out of with build orders taken online or shit like that. And that's what I like watching, someone who plans so well into or out of a situation that he ends up winning. Not some korean on an adrenaline rush who squeezes out 250APM, casts more spells better than the opposition, and wins that way.

Why do you keep insisting on this retarded argument when it's been pointed out several times that it's just plain false? Look, we get it, you enjoy SC2 more than BW, but please don't make shit up to justify your preference. It's obvious you don't understand the first thing about BW progaming scene, so why spew out clueless remarks like "the guy who casts a bunch of spells faster wins the game"? The Korean progamers are constantly trying to find new ways to innovate and outsmart each other to get even the slightest edge, and here you come along and go "lol wuts so complicated just do shit faster and u win".

SC2's competitive scene is a complete joke compared to the BW Korean progaming scene. And no, I'm not referring to the fact that BW progamers have much higher APM. I'm talking purely about strategy. Your understanding of BW perfectly illustrates what that article was talking about when the guy said "casual players only notice the micro, but only experts see the macro". Underneath all the fancy micro are incredibly well-thought out build orders, near-perfect decision making, and an amazing game sense. In the long run, that is the main reason why a lot of us continue to follow the BW scene, not the few instances of godly micro.

So we can agree to disagree, but I don't concede to the point that micro by definition makes the game more interesting or strategic. Indeed I still hold to the exact opposite.

Then why not show some examples of SC2 being strategically superior to BW as a direct result of micro not being important, instead of just stubbornly disagreeing?

 

[attackfighter]

Dark Matter and attackfighter: The real problems seems to be that we disagree about what the game should be about. I downright disagree that micro makes the game more interesting to watch, for me, it's the exact opposite.

You might postulate that "everyone can get macro right", and perhaps it's true to the extent that everyone can use a build order and get things right in the beginning, but deciding how to macro in mid- and late-game is rarely something you can wiggle out of with build orders taken online or shit like that. And that's what I like watching, someone who plans so well into or out of a situation that he ends up winning. Not some korean on an adrenaline rush who squeezes out 250APM, casts more spells better than the opposition, and wins that way. I don't like bringing up TheLittleOne since crowd-favorites are usually hated on the Codex, but my reason for liking him is the fact that he can pull seemingly insane decisions off.

And I simply like this aspect of the game more; decision-making and the consequences of those decisions (aka strategy) instead of who controls the games micro-mechanics best.

So we can agree to disagree, but I don't concede to the point that micro by definition makes the game more interesting or strategic. Indeed I still hold to the exact opposite.

"knowing what to build" in this context is essentially just rock paper scissors, and it happened in BW too so you're a not only a moron but a hypocrite as well.

It might be worth pointing out when you talk about better micro in BW if you're also referring to using game quirks - which is valid enough though, but it doesn't seem like it was actually designed for it originally. This besides needing better placement, awareness, and not having these "smart/multiple" builds and casts like in SC2, or control group size.

I'm pretty rusty at BW, so I may be completely misremembering, but quirky things like attacking on the run with vulture patrol micro, lurkers targeting things in the FoW so you can better ambush more of the enemy, or grouping mutalisks in with an overlord or larva so they stack, and something about the direction you turn them in when flying so they don't decelerate (I'm pretty fuzzy about that now).

You're right, a lot of things in SC1 were just flukes. Blizzard didn't intend for most of the micro tricks in the game, they didn't even intend for obvious shit like shuttle+reaver harass (reaver was intended to be a somewhat immobile defensive unit). I don't give Blizz any props for SC1 and I sure as hell don't give them any for SC2, if they had died after releasing BW the world would be so much better...

 

[Dark Matter]

It might be worth pointing out when you talk about better micro in BW if you're referring to using game quirks - which is valid enough though, but it doesn't seem like it was actually designed for it originally. This besides not having these "smart/multiple" builds and casts like in SC2, or control group size.

So? All those cute little tricks you can pull off are part of BW's charm.

Right, but it just seems like there's a lot of complaining about the lack of it in SC2 sometimes (maybe not in this thread). So never mind.

Everybody finds something different exciting - I just can't give much of a damn about gimmicky microing no matter how much skill is actually involved. Again, I hardly followed the BW scene, but it seemed like there were a crop of stalwarts but many more "few extra strategy wonders" who got countered and then faded away.

I'm not saying SC2 is more strategical either - if anything, some retarded strategies can be all too effective.

How is muta-stacking gimmicky micro when it revolutionized the ZvT matchup?

 

[Grunker]

It's obvious you don't understand the first thing about BW progaming scene, so why spew out clueless remarks like "the guy who casts a bunch of spells faster wins the game"?

Do you know the term 'hyperbole'? Incidentally, how does that differantiate from this:

SC2's battles are the very definition of clusterfuck.

it's just that they're more subtle than SC2's "LOL HES GETTING COLLUSUS WHEN FIGHTING ALL MARINES WHAT A FUCKING GENIUS 10/10 GOTY" and hence dumb noobs like you don't understand them.

The Korean progamers are constantly trying to find new ways to innovate and outsmart each other to get even the slightest edge, and here you come along and go "lol wuts so complicated just do shit faster and u win".

You use at least, if not more, retarded hyperbole, so fuck you and your "baha he's such a n00b who doesn't understand the awe-inspiring complexity of Brood War." You said SC2's quality was worse because of less micro. At no fucking point in time did I say: "No, SC2 is better because of more macro" - I said:

Less micro does not a bad game make.

Two times, now, have I admitted to my knowledge being less than yours, therefore only contesting your views within their own context. In fact:

Then why not show some examples of SC2 being strategically superior to BW as a direct result of micro not being important, instead of just stubbornly disagreeing?

This is as retarded as call-outs come, 'cause I've never claimed what you suggest, and I've even stated that I can't, because I haven't followed the BW-scene enough. You'd rather I pretended I had?

If I had, I would have said: "You're wrong, SC2 is better" and not "You're wrong if you think the lack of micro hurts the franchise."

So, in conclusion, suck donkey-balls or strike at my points, not whatever you conceive my points as being. If you're of the opinion that the macro in Brood War is also better, perhaps that would have been a good thing to suggest before opening your vocabulary of synonyms to retard and level them against me, which is especially stupid considering the fact that I actually try to debate your points instead of just laughing at you for being very angry about Starcraft.

 

[Ulminati]

Right. I think I understand.

Like a monkey, flinging feces at random passers-by, it is simply the way they communicate. In their world, perfection was acheived 12 years ago. Any changes to the Doctrine of their korean overlords was doomed for the get-go, as trying to change gameplay to take in account change in playstyle is akin to fapping over the Mona Lisa.

I have seen the light!

Shame on blizzard for not making their new game identical to as 12-year old predecessor, only with shinier graphics. Shame on blizzard for not acheiving on day 1 what took the last game an expansion pack and a further year of pathcing to accomplish. It is a well-known fact that there will never be any balance patches ever, and that no other game ever had balance issues on release.

It is a well-known fact that the roughly 1 million users on the european battle-net server playing SC2 right at this moment all do so because their hate for the changes burn brighter than the fires of a thousand suns.

To arms! For our Korean overlords!

 

[attackfighter]

It's obvious you don't understand the first thing about BW progaming scene, so why spew out clueless remarks like "the guy who casts a bunch of spells faster wins the game"?

Do you know the term 'hyperbole'? Incidentally, how does that differantiate from this:

SC2's battles are the very definition of clusterfuck.

it's just that they're more subtle than SC2's "LOL HES GETTING COLLUSUS WHEN FIGHTING ALL MARINES WHAT A FUCKING GENIUS 10/10 GOTY" and hence dumb noobs like you don't understand them.

The Korean progamers are constantly trying to find new ways to innovate and outsmart each other to get even the slightest edge, and here you come along and go "lol wuts so complicated just do shit faster and u win".

You use at least, if not more, retarded hyperbole, so fuck you and your "baha he's such a n00b who doesn't understand the awe-inspiring complexity of Brood War." You said SC2's quality was worse because of less micro. At no fucking point in time did I say: "No, SC2 is better because of more macro" - I said:

Less micro does not a bad game make.

Two times, now, have I admitted to my knowledge being less than yours, therefore only contesting your views within their own context. In fact:

Then why not show some examples of SC2 being strategically superior to BW as a direct result of micro not being important, instead of just stubbornly disagreeing?

This is as retarded as call-outs come, 'cause I've never claimed what you suggest, and I've even stated that I can't, because I haven't followed the BW-scene enough. You'd rather I pretended I had?

If I had, I would have said: "You're wrong, SC2 is better" and not "You're wrong if you think the lack of micro hurts the franchise."

So, in conclusion, suck donkey-balls or strike at my points, not whatever you conceive my points as being. If you're of the opinion that the macro in Brood War is also better, perhaps that would have been a good thing to suggest before opening your vocabulary of synonyms to retard and level them against me, which is especially stupid considering the fact that I actually try to debate your points instead of just laughing at you for being very angry about Starcraft.

stop writing these text walls when all you have to say is "lol, this is just like, my uninformed opinion man XD"

Right. I think I understand.

Like a monkey, flinging feces at random passers-by, it is simply the way they communicate. In their world, perfection was acheived 12 years ago. Any changes to the Doctrine of their korean overlords was doomed for the get-go, as trying to change gameplay to take in account change in playstyle is akin to fapping over the Mona Lisa.

I have seen the light!

Shame on blizzard for not making their new game identical to as 12-year old predecessor, only with shinier graphics. Shame on blizzard for not acheiving on day 1 what took the last game an expansion pack and a further year of pathcing to accomplish. It is a well-known fact that there will never be any balance patches ever, and that no other game ever had balance issues on release.

It is a well-known fact that the roughly 1 million users on the european battle-net server playing SC2 right at this moment all do so because their hate for the changes burn brighter than the fires of a thousand suns.

To arms! For our Korean overlords!

The real problem is that there shouldn't have been a sequel in the first place. It's like Majesty 2, Fallout 3, and so many other franchises that were ressurected only to be shat all over by the money-cow that is Blizzard. Damn them.

 

[Ulminati]

We get it. You're upset someone made a game. You can either continue to rage and give yourself an ulcer -- let's be fair, you two haven't won a single convert in here.

OR

You can learn to stop worrying and love the decline

[Edit - addendum]
I played SC1 back in the day. I played Brood war too. And now I play SC2. The games are quite different. I personally find I like SC2 better, and so do most of the people I play with regularly. I can fully understand that some may prefer SC1 to SC2. It's a bit like with vegetarians. I don't pretend to understand WHY they won't eat meat. But I am willing to accept that they don't, so long as they'll STFU and let me eat my bacon without calling PETA.

 

[attackfighter]

Look at the topic title man - originally we were trying to discuss brood war in isolation from SC2, but then all these blizzard fanboys came and started shitting all over the place. And now you paint us as the aggressors...

 

[Dark Matter]

Do you know the term 'hyperbole'? Incidentally, how does that differantiate from this:

My comment about SC2's battles being a clusterfuck was a criticism of its shitty art design and the clumped formations. How is it a hyperbole? Have two maxed out armies clash each other and cast as many spells as you can, the resulting mayhem is indeed one big clusterfuck.

On the other hand, your comment was not merely an oversimplification but whatever point you were trying to make, even taken as a hyperbole, is just plain false.

You said SC2's quality was worse because of less micro. At no fucking point in time did I say: "No, SC2 is better because of more macro" - I said:

Less micro does not a bad game make.

Accompanied with "I enjoy watching SC2 more because games are decided by strategy unlike in BW, where the result is determined based on which guy is faster than the other".

Two times, now, have I admitted to my knowledge being less than yours, therefore only contesting your views within their own context.

Yet that hasn't deterred you from making silly and blatantly false statements about the BW competitive scene. At no point did I suggest macro was unimportant in BW, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that BW is all about who can micro faster. I emphasized micro to point out its influence on strategy and address the whole "this is a strategy game, micro is dumb and shouldn't matter" issue.

If I had, I would have said: "You're wrong, SC2 is better" and not "You're wrong if you think the lack of micro hurts the franchise."

And most of my arguments were in response to the latter statement.

 

[Dark Matter]

We get it. You're upset someone made a game. You can either continue to rage and give yourself an ulcer -- let's be fair, you two haven't won a single convert in here.

OR

[Edit - addendum]
I played SC1 back in the day. I played Brood war too. And now I play SC2. The games are quite different. I personally find I like SC2 better, and so do most of the people I play with regularly. I can fully understand that some may prefer SC1 to SC2. It's a bit like with vegetarians. I don't pretend to understand WHY they won't eat meat. But I am willing to accept that they don't, so long as they'll STFU and let me eat my bacon without calling PETA.

I'm sure Bethesda and Bioware fans feel the same way about the Codex.

 

[Antihero]

How is muta-stacking gimmicky micro when it revolutionized the ZvT matchup?

Would it have been so terrible skill or balance-wise if you could do it without tricks since it apparently doesn't break the game if some skilled player can do it often? There's the splash damage threat, so you might not want it to happen automatically (some sort of stance).

It'd be dumbing it down, but even with barely any micro past selecting some units your mutas get a much bigger advantage (or disadvantage for SD, so there's still that trade-off at least). Keeping it up is another thing, but not something all that interesting.

 

[attackfighter]

How is muta-stacking gimmicky micro when it revolutionized the ZvT matchup?

Would it have been so terrible skill or balance-wise if you could do it without tricks since it apparently doesn't break the game if some skilled player can do it often? There's the splash damage threat, so you might not want it to happen automatically (some sort of stance).

It'd be dumbing it down, but even with barely any micro past selecting some units your mutas get a much bigger advantage (or disadvantage for SD, so there's still that trade-off at least). Keeping it up is another thing, but not something all that interesting.

Where are you trying to go with this? Muta stacking is nice regardless of whether or not Blizzard intended for it. Also when people refer to muta micro they're usually referring to the moving shot with the patrol command (this is enabled by muta stacking but it's not the dazzling part).

 

[Antihero]

Where are you trying to go with this?

Nowhere as important (or unimportant really) as it's being made out to be. Just started snowballing from a previous post about micro. If I had a bottom line: more micro can't hurt, just it'd be more interesting if it didn't rely on AI weirdness, quirks, etc to even be possible - but I guess once you get used to it you don't care, I suppose. Not like SC should have had separate commands for all the tricks that you can do anyway...

 

[Shuma]

Blizzard just took the easy way out, they removed interesting units like lurkers because they were too lazy to balance them properly.

Come on.

Laziness has nothing to do with anything Blizzard ever does. You really think the designers and programmers sat around and said, "Oh man, designing a cool unit like the Lurker is JUST SO HARD. Let's shoot each other with Nerf guns instead!"

Give me a break. If nothing else, these guys are professionals. If a unit like the Lurker isn't in the game, it's not because they were lazy.

 

[kingcomrade]

attackfighter is probably the only person on the codex more obnoxious than skyway

If a unit like the Lurker isn't in the game, it's not because they were lazy.

that leaves stupid

 

[Destroid]

So... BW was made great by exploits?

Although, it wouldn't be the first time such a thing had been designed into the sequel (see tribes2, tribes vengeance and skiing).

 

[chzr]

I played SC1 back in the day. I played Brood war too. And now I play SC2. The games are quite different. I personally find I like SC2 better, and so do most of the people I play with regularly. I can fully understand that some may prefer SC1 to SC2. It's a bit like with vegetarians. I don't pretend to understand WHY they won't eat meat. But I am willing to accept that they don't, so long as they'll STFU and let me eat my bacon without calling PETA.

meat isn't a sequel to vegetables (or other veg. food), it's simply something different.

however - SC2 is actually a sequel. Point it, the gameplay is not 'same' enough to excuse lack of innovation and it's not 'improved' enough (like WC2 to WC3) to be superior to original.

using your example, SC1 players eat chicken and Blizzard is trying to sell them pork saying it's same as their chicken, but better.

 

[attackfighter]

Where are you trying to go with this?

Nowhere as important (or unimportant really) as it's being made out to be. Just started snowballing from a previous post about micro. If I had a bottom line: more micro can't hurt, just it'd be more interesting if it didn't rely on AI weirdness, quirks, etc to even be possible - but I guess once you get used to it you don't care, I suppose. Not like SC should have had separate commands for all the tricks that you can do anyway...

Eh, I disagree I think player innovated techniques are better than ones shoved down our throats by the devs. The latter just feels forced and unnesesary.

So... BW was made great by exploits?

Although, it wouldn't be the first time such a thing had been designed into the sequel (see tribes2, tribes vengeance and skiing).

Somewhat, asides from muta stacking and patrol micro I can't think of any big exploits. There're some tricks like jumping units over mineral fields, but I wouldn't say they've impacted the game too much.

It improves the game anyways, like the strafing move thing in Quake, or rocket jumping.

attackfighter is probably the only person on the codex more obnoxious than skyway

example