Printable View
I don't know. There's 1309 replies. Even if we assume that all those replies are from different individuals that all agree with this(which is not the case) that's still not much compared to how much players are looking forward to Starcraft 2 so I wouldn't say it's really representative.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwich_bird
lol no matter how many replies you get "that's still not much compared to how much players are looking forward to Starcraft 2"
TL is the best representation of the competive community and have the largest traffic. Short of Blizzard official polls its the best statistics you can get on that specific player bases opinion.
That's exactly my problem with it. I believe that the majority of players that are looking forward to starcraft 2 don't give a crap about moving shots or etc and possibly don't know or barely know the glitches in starcraft 1 that were used to micro. If this is the case, adding those features would barely be affecting the success of this sequel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
I can't really prove it though because you said it yourself : "Short of Blizzard official polls its the best statistics you can get on that specific player bases opinion".
There are still plenty of examples of this NOT being true.Quote:
The countering structure is currently a joke. You are rewarded for building more of the right unit than how you ACTUALLY use the unit.
Just from using the in-game mechanics rather than bugs in the game's programming. And I still don't see the problem with that.
You're right. Giving players complete control over units are bugs. Getting rid of ways to get good with units other than A-Moving is a good thing. SC2 might be the most castrated sequel of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
I was going to reply to your bigger post (in response to mine) when I had the time, but this little jewel right here made anything I could say there completely irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Operatoring
If you think that Reapers, Ghosts, Hellions, Vikings, Colossi, Stalkers, Sentries, High Templar, Void Rays, and Banelings are A-Moving units, you're beyond reasonable, rational argument.
To say that SC2 is a castrated sequel is a bit much. Yes, I want to see more air control for units, but I think ground units are fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Operatoring
Seriously though, it took until 2007 for the drone moving shot thing to be used in a match, and most dont even see much use (if any use, though it is cool when it happens).
Stalker?Quote:
No, he said some units should have it and some shouldn't. There are no ground units that can be Microed with complete control like the Vulture, Archon, Drone, etc.
I find this thread rather ironic. Especially considering that up until late last year, people were complaining about the gameplay being TOO micro intensive, with not enough emphasis on macro/base mgmt.
Hey Operatoring, have you actually played the game yet or are you still AI stomping and calling it multiplayer? If you're on beta, what's your account. I hope you're high platinum.
What's wrong with catering to the competitive community?Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwich_bird
The competitive community, whether you like them or not, pretty much put SC1 on the map, turning it from "great RTS" to "amazing RTS that changed an entire gaming culture and pioneered e-Sports". And you're smoking something if you think the multi-million dollar industry didn't help Blizzard's financial success in any way. There IS money to be made from making a game competitive, and since Blizzard had made it clear multiple times that they want SC2 to be a competitive game, they should go the extra distance.
Pretty much everything the competitive community is asking for in that thread wouldn't hurt casuals in any way. How is moving shot going to hurt casuals? Most casuals probably won't ever know what that even is, and they probably won't even encounter it at the Copper/Bronze levels. Refusing to add more depth to the game just because less skilled players can't handle it is backwards gaming design. Going by that logic, we might as well make every unit the exact same because regular Joe can't handle getting the right mix of units. You don't HAVE to use moving shot just like you don't HAVE to use the macro mechanics, but they are there for the more skilled players to use if they want to get better.
What bothered me most about the whole moving shot debate is how many people are utterly against it for absolutely no reason. I've heard the following arguments so many times it's ridiculous:
"SC2 shouldn't have moving shot because SC1 had it!"
"People will find more bugs in the future, SC1 didn't become competitive in one month!"
The problem is that both are completely retarded arguments. There's nothing wrong with SC2 copying features from SC1 if they are GOOD features. Moving shot takes zero away from the game, and adds a ton of depth, so why take it out? The second argument also rests way too much on wishful thinking. Yes there will be bugs in the future, but that doesn't mean that it will add depth to the game on the level of SC1. I'd much rather have Blizzard add "bugs" that are guaranteed to add depth rather than do nothing but pray that there will be some magical bug in the future that will magically fix every problem in SC2 and magically make it an ultra-competitive game.
If a meteor was about to collide with the earth, who would you support more? The scientific group that is planning to blow the meteor up with a plan that has a 99.9% rate of success, or the hippie group that demands that the scientific group do nothing and instead just pray that the meteor blows up on its own. The fact that so many people seem to side with the hippies really worries me.