May be too late..?

[jimmy]

I played SC1 a bunch back in the 90's-2000's.

Finally got a SC2 beta key and was extremely excited. I watched streams, read info about the game, but as a result was a bit worried about the game. I was hoping playing it for myself will dispel some fears.

Cutting to the chase:
Well, the game (imo) is basically SC1, but prettier. It feels exactly the same (was this intended?). I mean it plays like a RTS of the late 90's, which during that time period, SC1 was king! And for what we had back then, SC1 was IT! Sure Command and Conquer had some competition, but Blizzard had the market cornered with their great RTS (Wc2, Sc1, Wc3) titles.

But things have changed, it's 2010 baby! New types of RTS's have come out in the past few years that introduced some stellar mechanics (specifically Company of Heroes, Warhammer 40k DoW1 and 2 and even Blizzards Warcraft 3 Hero system).

Here are a few things that bother me:

-The entire idea of micromanaging builders, resources, buildings, etc is very tedious and feels dated. CoH and Warhammer are completely devoid of that type of system. It's constant action, capture and hold style (they still have a base and such, but the micro in that regard is maybe 5% the effort required for sc2, don't believe me? Watch Husky/Lipton/David Lee stream a game and watch the APM go over 9000.

For instance: I don't want to have to feel like while I'm attacking a player in SC2, I have to constantly go back to my base, micro workers to tech up or a bit less tedious is to fire up my many different buildings that pump out units so I keep up with unit production while trying to micromanage my troops. This is of course to prevent massive resource build up during the action.(Yes I understand I can bind all sorts of control groups to my buildings which I do))

-The "paper/rock/scissor" style also feels dated. While it exists in games today, there are other variables players can use to capitalize in combat, ie: Cover system/projectile system (unless there is a hidden one in place that I'm unaware of, I know wc3 has a chance to miss when shooting up ramps). And the current system is too unforgiving. If you literally were not prepared for the rock and you are a scissor, simply press enter and type in "gg". :) While this could be the case in other RTS games, you have a bit more time to react accordingly or try different avenues (as the main objectives are not necessarily "kill 'em all"). Perhaps capture and hold will be a different game type besides Melee? Will it be popular? or will Melee prosper like it always had?

-One last criticism is not having idle workers and "troop" buttons. "WTF is a troop button?" Well, that's what I'm calling it, but it's when (again, in other RTS games), when you crank out a certain unit, you can see its portrait or something representing it along the border of your screen. 1 click selects it (or shift click to add to a control group), or double click centers on it. It feels very late 90's (ancient in video game time) to have to constantly flick back and forth on the mini map to scoop up fresh troops to join the action wherever it may be. Main point: I can keep eyes on the battlefield/scouting while micro-ing my guys 10 screens away to certain locations.

While some innovation with the z-axis switching via jump packs etc., new units/mechanics is fun, this game feels like an expansion pack for Starcraft 1... on steroids ...and stimpacks.

But! Perhaps I was expecting too much? Was the "x-pack on roids" the goal?

Normally when 10 years of technology/gaming goes by, Blizzard totally reinvents the wheel. The company siphons off great ideas from other best selling games, innovates other ideas, throws on some magical Blizzard pixie dust and breaks sales records (Diablo/World of Warcraft). Historically speaking should I NOT expect great innovation from SC2?

Again, these are just some early concerns, yes I know this is a beta hence why I'm writing here to throw this out there. There could be some things already in the works, or some things I don't fully understand. I have friends that played Sc1 when it first game out and they have similar feelings. Perhaps this is on other people's minds? Perhaps I'm crazy? Perhaps I'm a scrub noob?

Well, the latter wouldn't be too far from the truth and I'm far being some authority figure. But as a Blizzard game consumer since the "Rock n' Roll" racing days, I feel Blizzard has great talent that isn't being utilized to it's fullest with this current Sc2 build! :-O But the title of this post is mainly referring to many of the suggestions/ideas presented in this post would probably take an arduous and ridiculous amount of re-working.

Er... should this go into the suggestion forum? IS there a suggestion forum? Maybe its a feedback forum.... :-\

Hmm...I'll put it here, perhaps it will generate discussion...

[Brin]

My god, you wrote so much.

Regarding the micromanagement:
This is StarCraft, my immediate knee jerk reaction in response is: If you don't like it, this isn't the game for you.

Regarding rock-paper-scissors:
My friend made a comment about RPS system being out of date...I don't understand this comment, rock paper scissors doesn't go out of date.

If you literally were not prepared for the rock and you are a scissor, simply press enter and type in "gg"

One needs to scout often, as information is part of the battle.

One last criticism is not having idle workers and "troop" buttons
There is an idle workers button on the left hand side, as well as a hotkey (F1) (OT:An improvement to this would be that it selects the nearest worker to the screen, instead of jumping across a map in some instances to select the 'first born' or whatever). To my knowledge, there is no idle troop button, but I don't think it is necessary (for me anyways), as I track my "troops" well. Not a bad idea though.

[Poolatka]

dude..... its starcraft....

[Acosnil]

-The entire idea of micromanaging builders, resources, buildings, etc is very tedious and feels dated. CoH and Warhammer are completely devoid of that type of system. It's constant action, capture and hold style (they still have a base and such, but the micro in that regard is maybe 5% the effort required for sc2, don't believe me? Watch Husky/Lipton/David Lee stream a game and watch the APM go over 9000.

SC is still very much a micro game, and it's probably the best balance of the two- COH and DOW have very little macro to speak of. Beyond that, they're horribly balanced. Don't even try to bring them into a valid argument. Not only is capture and hold a flawed system for a strategy game but it doesn't help when some factions are just build to be campy.


For instance: I don't want to have to feel like while I'm attacking a player in SC2, I have to constantly go back to my base, micro workers to tech up or a bit less tedious is to fire up my many different buildings that pump out units so I keep up with unit production while trying to micromanage my troops. This is of course to prevent massive resource build up during the action.(Yes I understand I can bind all sorts of control groups to my buildings which I do))

If you know about hot keys what's the problem here?


-The "paper/rock/scissor" style also feels dated. While it exists in games today, there are other variables players can use to capitalize in combat, ie: Cover system/projectile system (unless there is a hidden one in place that I'm unaware of, I know wc3 has a chance to miss when shooting up ramps). And the current system is too unforgiving. If you literally were not prepared for the rock and you are a scissor, simply press enter and type in "gg". :) While this could be the case in other RTS games, you have a bit more time to react accordingly or try different avenues (as the main objectives are not necessarily "kill 'em all"). Perhaps capture and hold will be a different game type besides Melee? Will it be popular? or will Melee prosper like it always had?

You want to talk about rock / paper / scissor balancing systems when you also try to level COH and DOW as the comparisons? If the current system is too forgiving for not being adequately prepared (for what? Air before you had anything to shoot it? Detectors before dark templar?) for something it's the attacker's fault for not properly exploiting the advantage said unit gave them.


-One last criticism is not having idle workers and "troop" buttons. "WTF is a troop button?" Well, that's what I'm calling it, but it's when (again, in other RTS games), when you crank out a certain unit, you can see its portrait or something representing it along the border of your screen. 1 click selects it (or shift click to add to a control group), or double click centers on it. It feels very late 90's (ancient in video game time) to have to constantly flick back and forth on the mini map to scoop up fresh troops to join the action wherever it may be. Main point: I can keep eyes on the battlefield/scouting while micro-ing my guys 10 screens away to certain locations.

...I'm fairly certain that this is literally in the game. If not, you still have hotkeys selecting up to 32 units, and rally points. What more could you need?

While some innovation with the z-axis switching via jump packs etc., new units/mechanics is fun, this game feels like an expansion pack for Starcraft 1... on steroids ...and stimpacks.

But! Perhaps I was expecting too much? Was the "x-pack on roids" the goal?

Normally when 10 years of technology/gaming goes by, Blizzard totally reinvents the wheel. The company siphons off great ideas from other best selling games, innovates other ideas, throws on some magical Blizzard pixie dust and breaks sales records (Diablo/World of Warcraft). Historically speaking should I NOT expect great innovation from SC2?

Again, these are just some early concerns, yes I know this is a beta hence why I'm writing here to throw this out there. There could be some things already in the works, or some things I don't fully understand. I have friends that played Sc1 when it first game out and they have similar feelings. Perhaps this is on other people's minds? Perhaps I'm crazy? Perhaps I'm a scrub noob?

What you're expecting is a different game, and you're probably being simultaneously blinded by nostalgia. The game certainly looks like it used to, but it handles differently. It's getting behind the wheel of a brand new Mustang after driving a vintage 1960's Mustang for 5 years. It's going to feel similar but there's a lot that's changed. If nothing else the combat is a lot more fluid- turtling is not viable anymore and most any defense is easily either circumvented or out right destroyed.

What you wont find though, is another game. This is very much

[jimmy]

SC is still very much a micro game, and it's probably the best balance of the two- COH and DOW have very little macro to speak of. Beyond that, they're horribly balanced. Don't even try to bring them into a valid argument. Not only is capture and hold a flawed system for a strategy game but it doesn't help when some factions are just build to be campy.

Completely disagree here. You can't hold a camp in any of those games as there are very strong counters/methods to getting around them. Most matches in the higher leagues are very much on the move constantly with intense fighting going on with incredible micro, this type of micro I don't mind. (Micro intensity verging on Starcraft, but with no "upkeep micro" if that makes any sense)

And as far as their game balance is concerned, it's no different than imbalances that arise in any Blizzard game.

[Tornare]

This is almost like a thread a few days ago so i am not going to go into it again, other then to say Starcraft 1 never really got dated. More people play SC1 today then most any other RTS that has came out in the last 10 years. One of the reasons is because it does not do many of the things you listed. Alot of people hate heros including me (other then custom maps)

And as far as their game balance is concerned, it's no different than imbalances that arise in any Blizzard game.
and about this. yes some other games are sort of balanced, but i can not honestly say i have ever played a game as balanced as Starcraft 1. SC2 has work to be done still to get to that level, and pretty much any other RTS is nowhere as close.

[Nightmare]

Is this the same thread that was posted in Feedback/Suggestions?

[Tornare]

I swear it is. I think it is just that some people expect SC2 to be like WC3 or some other RTS they enjoyed.

[Nightmare]

Starcraft 2 is not like Warcraft III. It is not like Company of Heroes or Dawn of War. It is not like Supreme Commander or Command and Conquer. It is not like Civilization.

Starcraft 2 is infinitely better than Warcraft III, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander, and Command and Conquer, and Civilization combined. Because let's face it, excluding Warcraft III and Civilization, every other RTS is utter crap in comparison to Starcraft.

OP: I posted my long response in your other thread that is inexplicably in Suggestions/Feedback as that is where I spend most of my SCII forum time. That being said, judging by the way you post and the way you reference the features, it sounds like the Starcraft/Starcraft II style of RTS just isn't something you enjoy. Adding these features would not "improve" Starcraft II; it would completely ruin it.

Just because it's new doesn't mean it's good.

[Acosnil]

Completely disagree here. You can't hold a camp in any of those games as there are very strong counters/methods to getting around them. Most matches in the higher leagues are very much on the move constantly with intense fighting going on with incredible micro, this type of micro I don't mind. (Micro intensity verging on Starcraft, but with no "upkeep micro" if that makes any sense)

And as far as their game balance is concerned, it's no different than imbalances that arise in any Blizzard game.




There's a reason the British in COH got called "sim city" and it's not because they were the brisk, mobile faction.

There's a reason that most threads on GR.com for COH come back to one of three factions camping their medical tents and bunkers.

No, COH is very much a campy game.

Just the same, space marines late game in DOW turn into a giant, long line of weapon crews that just leapfrog off each other.

DOW isn't as much a campy game, but it's still there.

[Inoob]

dude..... its starcraft....
people used to say the same about unreal tournament. then part 3 came out, which was still very much like 2004, but by that time nobody cared. people moved onto COD, and other games that actually developed the genre further. games that made the genre exciting again. if every time a new starcraft comes out, and its exactly like its predecessor, due to the "hard core" users wanting the exact same experience but with prettier graphics and better sound, then eventually you too will grow bored, and move onto something else. its a fact of life.
now im not saying sc2 is exactly like sc1, because it isnt, and it has evolved a bunch, but imo after more than 10 years of other games coming up with some good ideas, its sort of sad how few of those ideas have made its way into sc2. no way to define formations?! thats a huge oversight. unit not able to travel together at the same pace?! you could do that in warcraft 3, but you cant in sc2 it seems, another huge oversight in my opinion. adding those two things would make the game only richer, and not like war3, or any other game. they are standard military practices because they make sense.

but apparently its starcraft, formations dont exist in that universe.

nobody is asking for sc2 to be any other game than itself. what people are asking is for it to be more of a new and richer experience than it is. the game has to be developed for both the hard core, and casual crowd. wow didnt get to where it is by starting out as a hardcore game. you alienate people, and they wont care to give you money :) thats just how it is.

also, seeing the amount of posts here telling people they learn the game, true, but at the same time, that sounds like something we hear in the art world all the time.

artists saying that other peoples critiques dont matter because the critique is coming from an uneducated person in the arts. however, some of the better people to ask critiques on anatomy arent always artists, but people like doctors, or body builders, etc.

so to that end listening only to the very few people ontop of ladder would be a huge mistake. you have to take many things into consideration.

[Zasz]

people used to say the same about unreal tournament. then part 3 came out, which was still very much like 2004, but by that time nobody cared. people moved onto COD, and other games that actually developed the genre further. games that made the genre exciting again. if every time a new starcraft comes out, and its exactly like its predecessor, due to the "hard core" users wanting the exact same experience but with prettier graphics and better sound, then eventually you too will grow bored, and move onto something else. its a fact of life.
now im not saying sc2 is exactly like sc1, because it isnt, and it has evolved a bunch, but imo after more than 10 years of other games coming up with some good ideas, its sort of sad how few of those ideas have made its way into sc2. no way to define formations?! thats a huge oversight. unit not able to travel together at the same pace?! you could do that in warcraft 3, but you cant in sc2 it seems, another huge oversight in my opinion. adding those two things would make the game only richer, and not like war3, or any other game. they are standard military practices because they make sense.

but apparently its starcraft, formations dont exist in that universe.

nobody is asking for sc2 to be any other game than itself. what people are asking is for it to be more of a new and richer experience than it is. the game has to be developed for both the hard core, and casual crowd. wow didnt get to where it is by starting out as a hardcore game. you alienate people, and they wont care to give you money :) thats just how it is.

also, seeing the amount of posts here telling people they learn the game, true, but at the same time, that sounds like something we hear in the art world all the time.

artists saying that other peoples critiques dont matter because the critique is coming from an uneducated person in the arts. however, some of the better people to ask critiques on anatomy arent always artists, but people like doctors, or body builders, etc.

so to that end listening only to the very few people ontop of ladder would be a huge mistake. you have to take many things into consideration.

Just a quick note, WoW was developed for the hardcore crowd. Initially the end game was completely 40-man raid based, and while looking back Molten Core wasn't that difficult, at the time it could be hard to get into one of those guilds.

Over time Blizzard made it easier and easier to get gear. They made it easier and easier to defeat raid encounters. And while this increased their player-base substantially, did it improve the game? I don't think so. People like to be challenged. If I wanted to succeed at everything I attempted the first time around, I'd play Hello Kitty Island Adventure.

[Zerawth]

I have to post that I disagree with you 100% about this game not being what it should be.

How many other games are sold IN RETAIL STORES after 10 years (I think it's 12 if someone wants to check me on that)

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/StarCraft+Battle+Chest+-+Mac/Windows/3598770.p?skuId=3598770&id=1051806262714

http://www.target.com/StarCraft-Battle-Chest-Windows-XP/dp/B00001IVRD/sr=1-1/qid=1267288899/ref=sr_1_1/179-5292214-0573610?ie=UTF8&search-alias=tgt-index&frombrowse=0&index=target&rh=k:starcraft&page=1

SC 1 is played professionally in Korea. I know there are many people, myself included, who still like Starcraft 1, but wish it had something new, a few tweaks to make the gameplay a little more fluid, and of course, better graphics and sound.

Starcraft 2 is exactly that! It's the same three races with each having similar mechanics to the first game, where each race plays totally different, yet is balanced. The graphics are great, the sounds is nice, and the fact that they tweaked things like having your rally point on a mineral node have the worker start mining is exactly the kind of improvements that make the gameplay more fluid. I was hoping this would be what Starcraft 2 would be, and it is. If you want a different game, then maybe you should look at a different title.

[Gunslinger]

Dear OP,

Just because they made Nerf footballs, doesn't mean they use them in the NFL.

[Joey]

I think the RPS system will always be huge in this genre of RTS games. The secret to the game's success is how viable through the means of how well you play you can discover which your opponent is using, and plan accordingly.

[ghost]

DoW was a good game, wouldve been great if it wasnt horribly horribly unbalanced and actually had more than five people playing it.

seems like the OP wants no counters for anything and much more automation and not have to worry about having an achilles heel (workers).

[Spacefish]

The DOW series was highly unbalanced imo, even the second one and the spin offs. It was a fun and engaging single player experience, but even the buggy beta of SC2 is more balanced then anything in DOW ever was.

Blizzard has had 15 years to tweak their RTS formula, but why fix what isnt broken.
Comment #13 sums it all up nicely.

[Rifleman]

sometimes what people want is just some nicer graphics and some improvements (honestly, can't play SC1 in the current res). You can argue that changing too much would stray away people that played the original game. Some examples I can think of is HoN, CS:S, DoD:S, where there's graphic improvements but gameplay is similar.

Hard to break up a winning formula.

[Krazytrumpet]

But things have changed, it's 2010 baby! New types of RTS's have come out in the past few years that introduced some stellar mechanics (specifically Company of Heroes, Warhammer 40k DoW1 and 2 and even Blizzards Warcraft 3 Hero system).


Well, I pretty much hated all of those games so I'm glad SC2 is the way it is.

[Aybara]

people used to say the same about unreal tournament. then part 3 came out, which was still very much like 2004, but by that time nobody cared. people moved onto COD, and other games that actually developed the genre further. games that made the genre exciting again. if every time a new starcraft comes out, and its exactly like its predecessor, due to the "hard core" users wanting the exact same experience but with prettier graphics and better sound, then eventually you too will grow bored, and move onto something else. its a fact of life.
now im not saying sc2 is exactly like sc1, because it isnt, and it has evolved a bunch, but imo after more than 10 years of other games coming up with some good ideas, its sort of sad how few of those ideas have made its way into sc2. no way to define formations?! thats a huge oversight. unit not able to travel together at the same pace?! you could do that in warcraft 3, but you cant in sc2 it seems, another huge oversight in my opinion. adding those two things would make the game only richer, and not like war3, or any other game. they are standard military practices because they make sense.

but apparently its starcraft, formations dont exist in that universe.

nobody is asking for sc2 to be any other game than itself. what people are asking is for it to be more of a new and richer experience than it is. the game has to be developed for both the hard core, and casual crowd. wow didnt get to where it is by starting out as a hardcore game. you alienate people, and they wont care to give you money :) thats just how it is.


I think this post raises a very important point. It seems that Blizzard is trying to keep the game mechanically as similar as possible to make the game as difficult as possible for E-Sports. The only thing this is doing is making the game feel stale.

A) What the previous poster said is very true. Simple advances in the RTS industry are being ignored by Blizzard for the sake of forcing difficulty into the game. Formations and unit pacing are easy to implement. It will make the game more enjoyable for the average user allowing for a larger breadth of possibilities to explore and at the same time hardcore players will build on formation and pacing with their own micro allowing the game to continue to be viable in the professional sphere.

B) I'm sure there are other similar implementations that are possible such as cover and shooting up hill. I personally would enjoy those in the game as they would play a large impact on troop positioning. The complaint that people pose about this that relying on a random number generator for the miss % is unfair is just BS. I guess the argument is that say a 10% miss ratio occurs firing uphill... and in one case you hit that 10% randomly like 10 times and lose your army.. well don't fight uphill and those random events go both ways until it all plays out level.

Now, A) is extremely important and I believe should be implemented simply for playability and enjoyment across the board. B) I would love to have in the game (I thought shooting uphill caused misses in SC1) but I realize that implementing these kinds of changes might make the hardcore players heads explode.

Do the right thing Blizzard

[Krazytrumpet]

Do the right thing Blizzard



By leaving the game the way it is.

See, the thing is, stuff like cover, and shooting uphill etc, etc works in games where there aren't a fixed amount of map resources and if your army gets wiped out, oh well the resources will just keep coming in for a new one.

Adding mechanics where it becomes easier to wipe out enemy forces would require a rework of the whole economy system, in which case you would probably have a full on player rebellion.

[Zacd]

By leaving the game the way it is.

There's some things that they could add/change to make it more friendly to other RTS players while still keeping it competitive.

I'd like to be able "pin" units to stay around and follow 1 unit.

Some basic formations to keep ranged units behind melee units

[Krazytrumpet]

There's some things that they could add/change to make it more friendly to other RTS players while still keeping it competitive.

I'd like to be able "pin" units to stay around and follow 1 unit.

Some basic formations to keep ranged units behind melee units

Uh, you can already "pin" units. Select a unit or a group, then right click on what you want them to follow, and they will do that until you give them a new order.

People should learn about what's already in the game before they start asking for new stuff.

[Aybara]

By leaving the game the way it is.

See, the thing is, stuff like cover, and shooting uphill etc, etc works in games where there aren't a fixed amount of map resources and if your army gets wiped out, oh well the resources will just keep coming in for a new one.

Adding mechanics where it becomes easier to wipe out enemy forces would require a rework of the whole economy system, in which case you would probably have a full on player rebellion.

I disagree, if anything cover and uphill would reduce quick elimination of armies I think as people would play a more micro intensive cat and mouse game as opposed to the smashing heads style that seems to be winning out at the moment. Especially at the high levels, I think it could make for some very interesting matches.

As to design, I would have cover only in the central/expansion parts of the map and not the starting areas so the only natural defense a player would have at the start is possibly height; if they're on a level with ramps.

Again, just my opinions. As I said in my first post, this is just something I'd like to see and doubt it will happen. The other stuff, unit speed matching and formations I feel are very important and would benefit everyone if they were implemented.

[Firebat]

So your problem with StarCraft 2 is it is too much like StarCraft.

I think this isnt' the game for you. Maybe you should try Halo Wars on the 360.

We'll be playing StarCraft2,

[Riken]

Wait what?

CoH and DoW2 were TERRIBLE games.

How dare you compare them to Starcraft, much less Starcraft 2

Just give your key to a friend and give up, this game isn't for you apparently.

[Nightmare]

Basically the reason Blizzard doesn't implement these gimmicks is that they want to make a game that will last for another 12 years, not something that will be passed up on like every other game mentioned in this thread.

[Inoob]

adding formations is not a gimmick.
try telling that to the us army ;) lets see how far you get with that one.

those games dont do well not because of gimmicks, but because they are just generally bad games over all. mass fests, bad storylines, no real charm about them, and the company fails to build a community.

its the community part that blizzard has. if blizzard failed to do this, none of their games would have been played today. they also support their games WAY longer than any company. it has little to do with this or that gimmick. by that reasoning, air units are a gimmick, or the mother ship, or the base economy macro, or the fps view, etc. why not remove all those things, and let 2 people enjoy the game in 12 years, because they cant move on and are affraid of change.

formations, shooting up hill isnt a gimmick. i feel that having a detector/ scan to give you a perfect aim for the units below is a bigger gimmick. even though the overlord sees the unit, it doesnt mean that the units below will get a perfect shot just because i scanned the area, after all the units below cant actually see up hill.

its one of a few things. its either not implemented yet. a game design decision, or just an oversight. but gimmicks they arent. anything can be implemented in a good or bad way. just because you cant think outside the box doesn't mean its bad.

[Joey]

After we saw how useless formation was in War3, are you surprised they were removed in a game of even larger scale?

What probably happened:

- "We're testing formations today for the 5000th time Bob."
- "That's right Jim, why does this formation always have the edge in certain situations (choke point, down hill, up hill) with a certain type of unit (air, melee, g2a, a2g, etc)?"
- "I don't know but we can't quite balance it correctly."
- "Well, it just adds more variable and stupidity and something else that needs to be needlessly memorized as soon as the sc2 pros at *insert forum here* figure out the true advantage for each formation for each unit works best, let's remove it Jim"
- "You're right Bob, the idea was meaningless in war3x, and it's still pointless now, and adds nothing but more imbalance that would cause us to nerf units and make the game even tougher for the newer player, screw it."


Tell me I'm wrong.

[Tittus]

1. Diablo 2 was massively successful, by building on Diablo, not drastically changing it, so that can clearly be an effective sequel strategy. Blizzard doesn't need to reinvent the wheel to make an awesome Starcraft 2. I mean they practically did anyway: no dragoons. NO DRAGOONS. WHERE ARE MY DRAGOONS.

2. They did introduce cover and sight systems, note the introduction of vents and brush, as well as the watch towers. Let alone z-axis units.

3. The reason Starcraft has become so popular is because it is so easy to learn, but nearly impossible to master. To remove economy micro, or other small aspects of the game, reduces the maximum skill required to master the game. We watch professionals play Starcraft because it is so hard to do what they do, if you make it easy, what's the point?

4. Rock paper scissors doesn't get dated. See a playground for details.

[Acosnil]

Just a quick note, WoW was developed for the hardcore crowd. Initially the end game was completely 40-man raid based, and while looking back Molten Core wasn't that difficult, at the time it could be hard to get into one of those guilds.

Over time Blizzard made it easier and easier to get gear. They made it easier and easier to defeat raid encounters. And while this increased their player-base substantially, did it improve the game? I don't think so. People like to be challenged. If I wanted to succeed at everything I attempted the first time around, I'd play Hello Kitty Island Adventure.

They rotated the "challenge" off of the basic encounter and into heroics and achievements.

[Joey]

Don't drag wow into this, it doesn't work, here's why:


Wow was changed so that the average person could clear all content (aka be competitive,) but you still had better loot and more of a challenge if you decided to play the game in a guild that was competing in the dungeon's Heroc mode (challenging and more competitive.)


This was no secret into WOTLK, they want all players to see all content.

[Acosnil]

adding formations is not a gimmick.
try telling that to the us army ;) lets see how far you get with that one.

those games dont do well not because of gimmicks, but because they are just generally bad games over all. mass fests, bad storylines, no real charm about them, and the company fails to build a community.

No, it's a gimmick. Real life has very limited applications here. Adding a cover system or formations would be useless, and actually I suppose I should take a step back.

Formations do have a use. If you set up your army poorly in SC2 it'll loose you the game. I've won maps simply because my opponent didn't set things up right- sent in their mass of zerglings, hydras and roaches and left the air too far back. Siege tanks tore apart the ground, and a mass of marines denied access to my base while vikings smashed up their air.


its one of a few things. its either not implemented yet. a game design decision, or just an oversight. but gimmicks they arent. anything can be implemented in a good or bad way. just because you cant think outside the box doesn't mean its bad.
This is the part where we put down the book and actually do something. Its a gimmick so long as it can't be easily integrated into the game. That's exactly the case with SC2. Simply saying that anyone who shoots down your argument isn't thinking outside the box is just poor logic and argumentative skills too.

I'll simply leave it with this- SC wasn't broken. It doesn't need fixing. Games like COH and DOW need the cover systems and formations, ect because without it they are in fact broken.

[Webnetgs]

I can't see how any one could say that Starcraft needs to be like other games, the same games that get all this hype and die in the fire while Starcraft copy's sit perched on their Wal-Mart rack for another 10 years because Blizzard perfected the RTS genre.

Hey while your at it why not try bringing back building structures on roads, that is realistic, because that is what you want right?

I really can't see how people think this game is stale? I mean have you watched, I mean with you eyes man, a Bisu match or anything like that. If your not aware of the game or how it plays are why people like it, then you should be the very last person to make recommendations about what Blizzard should do with their games.

Its like Mark Sanford calling up Barrack Obama and telling how he should do his job. Its funny out of context but in context its just sad.

[Inoob]

actually its not because of that but because blizzard still supports their games for years on end. sure you can find sc1 copies, but how many people are actually playing ( outside of korea )? i'll bet that most people moved on YEARS ago. since blizzard supports their games, updates balance changes, network updates, sponsors events, etc, the games are played because of THAT.

the other games mentioned have very little support compared to what blizz does.

let me ask you. how many people would play war3 today if it wasnt patched the many times it was? or because it has tourneys, etc.?! many great games get abandoned for the pure reason that the company didnt support it, update it, etc.

to make a great example of this. the game GRID. many people stopped playing it just because the company stopped patching the game. hacks all over the place, no fixes to play the game properly on quad core pcs, list goes on. people would play otherwise. company support goes a long way.

[Krazytrumpet]

21340 users playing 4575 games on USEast @ 710PM EST. Show me another RTS games released even 2-3 years ago that still have a playerbase like that, let alone one released 10+ years ago.

[Nightmare]

actually its not because of that but because blizzard still supports their games for years on end. sure you can find sc1 copies, but how many people are actually playing ( outside of korea )? i'll bet that most people moved on YEARS ago. since blizzard supports their games, updates balance changes, network updates, sponsors events, etc, the games are played because of THAT.


the other games mentioned have very little support compared to what blizz does.


And yet if these games had the support Blizzard puts behind its franchises, I doubt the numbers would even come close to the number of people who play Blizzard RTS'. Quality of the game is still more important than community, because you won't have a good community if your game is a pile of trash.


let me ask you. how many people would play war3 today if it wasnt patched the many times it was? or because it has tourneys, etc.?! many great games get abandoned for the pure reason that the company didnt support it, update it, etc.


Let me tell you, the only reason Warcraft III even sells copies is because of DotA. Nobody plays Warcraft III ladder anymore. All the pros who do play Warcraft III ladder are probably going to swap to Starcraft II, because the quality of Warcraft III has fallen so much from where it used to be. From a community standpoint, I think Icefrog does more to support Warcraft III then Blizzard does, at this point in time.

[Inoob]

And yet if these games had the support Blizzard puts behind its franchises, I doubt the numbers would even come close to the number of people who play Blizzard RTS'. Quality of the game is still more important than community, because you won't have a good community if your game is a pile of trash.



Let me tell you, the only reason Warcraft III even sells copies is because of DotA. Nobody plays Warcraft III ladder anymore. All the pros who do play Warcraft III ladder are probably going to swap to Starcraft II, because the quality of Warcraft III has fallen so much from where it used to be. From a community standpoint, I think Icefrog does more to support Warcraft III then Blizzard does, at this point in time.

were getting a bit off topic but...

there were still a ton of games last year played besides just dota tourneys are still constantly active. without tourneys i dont think that game would be all that active. but the game isnt broken by any means, and the many patches that blizzard released helped the game live the long life it did. if blizzard stopped supporting war3, nobody would be playing ladder for years now, because of how bad hacking got at one point. each time ladder gets reset, and a patch gets released, theres always a surge of players playing because the game is fair and more exciting during that time.

look at cod for example, where do people play more? on console? or on pc? pc is all hacks everyone says, so they get it on console. games that are supported better, and companies do it consistently, build up their consumer trust and community. look at final fantasy games. regardless how bad one or two could be, there are fanatics that will get it regardless. if the guys that develop grid made a wicked community system, supported all their games, made sure to release patches often to limit hacks, yes the community would grow and people would be playing years later.

the diablo example was poor because diablo 2 changed a lot from diablo 1 as well, and now the game is all hacks and bots. barely a testament to how good the game is. its got free online play, some people got it off their friends, many got it cheap from the used bin, etc. nowadays you can hack any item you want, and stroke your ego some. but barely any real people actually play the game legit. the same will happen to starcraft 2 dude. eventually people will get bored of sc2, and play custom games regardless of what you think of sc2. it happens to all games. new games come out, people move on. some people have a hard time letting go, or have really crappy computers and stick with what they know because they are good at it.

however, if the game is all paper rock scissor because the game forces you to build a barracks, and supply unit at the choke point and doesnt let you do things your way because you WILL die otherwise, then people will grow tired of the game much MUCH quicker than you think. the fun thing about strategy games is that you have a ton of choice how to deal with problems. if a game is full of hard counters only, and isnt forgiving at all, and you have to play like a robot, then the general public wont really care to play. they will play dota, but again, people will move on much faster than you think. games like cod are popular because they are hard, and there are some amazing people on it, but at teh same time, the game rewards you even for being bad. if you suck you still get stuff like "most time spent watching kill cams" im not saying that blizzard should build a noob friendly game and forget about the hardcore, because all of their games are simple but hard to master. but so far what i see is armies dropping in seconds and its all based in the quickest reactions ever. blink and you see your army disappear. micro is not about pull back if the situation is bad for you, and let your army have at it while you sit back because you cant really do much cuz your army dies sooo fast. micro is all about fighting, using skills, moving units around the battle stage, pulling a few units out, killing enemies manually in a specific order that is more likely to ensure success. the faster this happens, the less likely it is that you would have done all possible to ensure the best battle possible. this is why i really think that all units and buildings should get a slight hp boost accross the board. nothing huge, but just enough to make sure that all units dont die within 2 seconds. want to destroy a building but the enemy is comming back to defend your base? fine, leave and come back later to finish the job. nobody says you have to do the job the first time. wear him down slowly.

my brother for example uses protoss and shields his enemies every time. hes yet to get a loss, even against some really good players. he doesnt give them a chance to really react. they are dead before the shields burn out. to me that means that enemies die too fast, or the shield lasts too long.

the whole cho

[Inoob]

he whole choke point or ramp on every level is a bad game design regardless how you think about it. terrans have supply units, but are forced to choke or they will die, no questions asked. if the game forces you to have the same two buildings in the same place every time, why doesnt the game start off that way. its just wasting everyones time because the choice isnt there. with a truly balanced game ( lets take chess as an example ) i can move any of the peons anywhere i want, and start each game however i want. in warcraft 3 i can have at least 3 really successful base setups, but i can win regardless how good or bad my base setup is, and many strategies too choose from early game. in the end its about how i play, and not only which units i choose. none of this marauder > roaches forced gameplay. so far all i see from zerg is rush, and terrans block the path to their base. EVERY GAME. its do or die. theres no strategy to it. no choice. late game its a different story and gets more exciting, but early game is super boring. late game is boring too, to some extent, because how powerful units just plow through everything, and it gets silly. i think mid game is where its at, and blizz did that part right. that is also where most pros stay at. the mid game, and thats why those games are exciting. but early and late game needs fixing. you could tell me that i should go play other games, and i do, but the difference here is that i probably care more about the final outcome and overall majority of the publics reception of this game than most of the people here do, because most ideas are shut down, when there are some good suggestions presented.

[Thebaron]

Stop trying to turn sequels into different games. If you want something new, go PLAY SOMETHING NEW. Some of us actually LIKE Starcraft, and if people like you made all the decisions we'd never get another one. We'd never get another anything.

[Soli]

If you want the gameplay of one of those other series, play one of those other series.

Many people consider Starcraft to be one of the most perfectly designed and balanced multiplayer games of all time. If you expected them to change the basic gameplay formula all that dramatically, I don't know what made you expect that. If you don't like micromanaging workers and units, this is CLEARLY not the game for you. All the things you complained about are skills tests in both the original SC and SC2 that you are probably just not so great at. I understand preferring games that focus more on combat tactics but this is very much a gosu microer's dream game.

That said, this is not just Starcraft but prettier. It's a more complex game - even the tier one melee units have researchable activated abilities and the like - heck, most BUILDINGS seem to have a new trick or two even! It's got a better variety of interesting hard and soft counters to every popular strategy.

[Inoob]

and if that is all you want, you will watch your beloved game be run to the ground.

some companies milk games until nobody plays them anymore. anyone remember guitar hero? that one went well... and it was a fun game. it was just milked.. and it never changed.

id software games werent really evolving either.. sure they have a cult following, but their sales counts are dropping fast because its the same thing over and over, with new graphics.

other companies started to build communities/ followings by actually evolving the genre, and are now making larger profit margins than id software is ( on their game side, im not talking about engine licensing )

blizzard knows this, and its why all their games are evolved just enough. look at WOW today compared to when it was initially released. it a different game.

games need to have a natural evolution to entice people to come back. theres enough people here saying that units die faster in this game than in sc1, and it makes it less enjoyable because you can barely do anything with your army you JUST built.. the base micro/macro that was changed is obviously different than in sc1. change is happening regardless of how you like it or not.


if it aint broken, dont fix it.. sure, so why make sc2 in the first place? im guessing to give people a new experience.

most people i talk to nowadays tried playing sc1 recently ( one of them even works at blizzard ), and he cant get himself to play sc1 anymore. ( granted he loves sc2, and zerg rushes :D ) sc1 is old and stale man. it was wicked back in the day, but that was a long time ago.


Many people consider Starcraft to be one of the most perfectly designed and balanced multiplayer games of all time. If you expected them to change the basic gameplay formula all that dramatically, I don't know what made you expect that. If you don't like micromanaging workers and units, this is CLEARLY not the game for you. All the things you complained about are skills tests in both the original SC and SC2 that you are probably just not so great at. I understand preferring games that focus more on combat tactics but this is very much a gosu microer's dream game.

actually its not a microers dream by any stretch. once you get into a fight, its over before you can press 5 keys. most microing i see from pros is go in pull back go in pull back. thats not micro. thats just clicking back and forth. ( granted there is some wicked micro pulled off when some battles do actually happen, but its usually extremely short lived, and then a gg ).

the best micro ive seen so far was from korean players in war3.hiding units, running them around, exchanging items between heros during battle so they can cause a bit more damage, or use a certain skill (like preserve staff ) and generally making battles last atleast 30-40 seconds each. but each time the battles are exciting because theres so much going on.

again, im not asking for this game to become war 3. but for the ability for the battles not to be so short lived, and throw away. make them memorable in some way or another.

funny thing is. if blizzard did in fact increase health to everyone by a bit, nobody would complain in the long run.

and.. i still stick to my point that choke points/ ramps are a gimmick to show off the supply depots ability to fold.

[engineer]

I'm not taking a particular side on the specific points in this argument, because I believe both sides have points. However, in my opinion, all of you folks arguing change for the sake of it are being absurd. So if you count yourself as one of those people, let me ask you a question: did you argue against MBS?

MBS is, in my mind, the perfect example of a UI improvement that happened after SC1 that absolutely belongs in this game. The only reason that it wasn't in SC1 was that they couldn't figure out a good way to implement it. And yet, when SC2 was announced to include MBS, the 'hardcore' reactionaries revolted. I remember posts lamenting that SC2 was doomed simply because I could group 2 barracks onto one hotkey. (In this exact same vein, we also have 'smartcasting' and the ability to select more than 12 units at a time.)

Reactionaries claimed that these relaxations of SC1's artificially difficult UI would ruin the game because they made it too easy for beginners to master it. That is just an absurd idea. In my mind, the ideal strategy game is one where I could plug the controller directly into my brain, and the user interface completely disappears. In that type of game, the real masters would be the ones with the best tactical and strategic minds. On the other hand, games that artificially handcuff the player with awkward UI's reward the player with the most practice and the quickest fingers, instead of the superior strategist.

I think all you folks insisting that SC2 has nothing to learn from the last 10 years of game design are being elitist. A new idea can and should be evaluated on its merits, not just whether it was in SC1.

Now, that being said, I think SC1 has done a good job of picking and choosing those UI elements that are most valuable, while omitting game elements that do not add strategic depth. But if the SC2 designers thought like some of you guys, then MBS, smartcasting, and large selection groups wouldn't be in SC2 simply because they weren't in SC1.

[Tauser]

While I can see the vast majority of respones here are Pro SC2, I do have to agree with the original point of view.
Perhaps I was expecting more....
Now, yes it is SC2, but I was kind of expecting something more, I'm not sure what but that is the weight of expectation.
Let's hope as more time is spent on the beta my perception changes, I can only hope Diablo 3 doesn't suffer the same fate.

[Brian]

How in the hell are choke points a gimmick? They were in the original game in exactly the same form they are in now. Dear lord ...

You know what my favorite sequel was? The sequel to "Pirates!" Why? Because the game didn't change much. Sure, some little new things were added. Brand new engine because the last game was more than a decade old, but the game itself was still the same. It felt the same, it played the same. THAT is what a sequel is! If you want "Starcraft: Trench Wars" the go pitch it to Blizzard and see what happens. Until then just let them do their job and make Starcraft 2.

[Joneleth]

To the OP, this is StarCraft.

and all the points you stated are exactly what make StarCraft StarCraft.


Any other way would be a different game. There are many "different" games on the market.

There is only one StarCraft.



You'll get used to and like it.

[Rebelfist]

I just read every single post. The only one that I definitely have to agree with on the side of change is allowing an option to have all your units move at the same pace.

That's it. While the other points are fine and dandy, they all have problems or just don't fit into the StarCraft series - for example, having formations? what happens when they move through the dozens of chokepoints on each map?

That being said, while I see the argument about chokepoints and how every game starts off very similarly, the fact is that the game becomes more diverse very, very quickly. Each match feels like its own to me, not exactly like other games. Plus, you don't HAVE to start the game that way if it's not your strategy (i.e. I just fought a Terran who tried to build a rax in the corner of my base - didn't work because my pylon saw his SCV come in, but it very easily could have). It generally starts the same way for each race because that strategy is, in general, the best one to use - are you also going to complain that 3 CT's go to A and 2 go B in CS almost every round? Probably not.

However, I would really like it if I could have my units move at the same pace so that my stalkers don't always end up in front of my zealots w/out massive micro ^^

[Brian]

I just read every single post. The only one that I definitely have to agree with on the side of change is allowing an option to have all your units move at the same pace.

That's it. While the other points are fine and dandy, they all have problems or just don't fit into the StarCraft series - for example, having formations? what happens when they move through the dozens of chokepoints on each map?

That being said, while I see the argument about chokepoints and how every game starts off very similarly, the fact is that the game becomes more diverse very, very quickly. Each match feels like its own to me, not exactly like other games. Plus, you don't HAVE to start the game that way if it's not your strategy (i.e. I just fought a Terran who tried to build a rax in the corner of my base - didn't work because my pylon saw his SCV come in, but it very easily could have). It generally starts the same way for each race because that strategy is, in general, the best one to use - are you also going to complain that 3 CT's go to A and 2 go B in CS almost every round? Probably not.

However, I would really like it if I could have my units move at the same pace so that my stalkers don't always end up in front of my zealots w/out massive micro ^^

I agree with that. Having your army traverse the better part of an entire map only to find their air support is still ... I don't know ... chatting up their local ATCs? Or when you have a few stalkers in a row that block your massive Zealot army behind them because your units are firing at something just above a choke point. Yeah ... improvements could be made there for sure.

[Rebelfist]

I agree with that. Having your army traverse the better part of an entire map only to find their air support is still ... I don't know ... chatting up their local ATCs? Or when you have a few stalkers in a row that block your massive Zealot army behind them because your units are firing at something just above a choke point. Yeah ... improvements could be made there for sure.

Exactly, and if you could just turn it off, then the pro players could choose to not use it if they don't like it. Just seems kinda silly to me; would help new and veteran players alike.

Additionally, to everyone complaining about the game going too fast and units dying too quickly, keep in mind that the only speed we can play on currently is faster. There will be other speeds available, do not worry!
.... but maybe not in ladder play, but that is supposed to be fast and competitive.

[Inoob]

Exactly, and if you could just turn it off, then the pro players could choose to not use it if they don't like it. Just seems kinda silly to me; would help new and veteran players alike.

Additionally, to everyone complaining about the game going too fast and units dying too quickly, keep in mind that the only speed we can play on currently is faster. There will be other speeds available, do not worry!
.... but maybe not in ladder play, but that is supposed to be fast and competitive.

only issue with game speed is that setting the game to slower also slows down the entire game. this is not what anyone wants except maybe for users in copper.

what we want is the same moving speed, same firing speed, but rather a slight increase to the time it takes to kill an entire army of units, just for the sake of giving users an extra second to react and micro manage their army better than it is currently. it wont make it any less pro, because pros will adapt and make their games even more exciting, while also making sure that newer players arent forced into having to turn into machines that do nothing but play games all day. people grow up, have jobs, families. if they HAVE to play all day in order to even play on copper level because the game is THAT unforgiving then there is something fundamentally wrong. ( granted, copper is pretty bad, but you get the idea )

[Yaji]

and about this. yes some other games are sort of balanced, but i can not honestly say i have ever played a game as balanced as Starcraft 1. SC2 has work to be done still to get to that level, and pretty much any other RTS is nowhere as close.

Also, dont forget that many games have 30 of the same shared unit and 1-5 unique units along with very similar play styles.. Although this isn't always true, one cannot deny how DIFFERENT each race in Starcraft is in every regard versus many of its competitors. Balancing is much easier whenever the gameplay/units are similar across multiple races.

I've always been baffled at the quality that Blizzard upholds whenever faced with such different races.