EPTI generally agree with your complaint about how sc2 plays different due to macro mechanics and changing roles of armies, but many players are opting for economy over rushing effective armies more than you seem to realize. If you watched the last zotac cup you noticed terrans fast expanding vs each other (sometimes even to gold patches), zergs fast expanding vs terran (duh), and I've noticed sometimes players pull it off in tvp/pvt. In bw this took years whereas in sc2 it's already starting to happen after a few weeks. I don't think this particular aspect of the problem is currently as bad as you make it out to be.
Whats wrong with SC2..? - Page 2
| Blogs > imBLIND |
micronesia
United States24751 Posts
I generally agree with your complaint about how sc2 plays different due to macro mechanics and changing roles of armies, but many players are opting for economy over rushing effective armies more than you seem to realize. If you watched the last zotac cup you noticed terrans fast expanding vs each other (sometimes even to gold patches), zergs fast expanding vs terran (duh), and I've noticed sometimes players pull it off in tvp/pvt. In bw this took years whereas in sc2 it's already starting to happen after a few weeks. I don't think this particular aspect of the problem is currently as bad as you make it out to be. | ||
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
On March 22 2010 19:37 SkytoM wrote: Hi , imblind and hyped myself so much into sc2 that i'm deeply disappointed that after 3weeks of beta the game is not better than his prequel. OMG OMG OMG . had to be said. hahaha...not. On March 22 2010 19:39 Gustav_Wind wrote: Are the macro mechanics really to blame, or is it the lack of defender's advantage? Things in BW that are used extensively that contribute hugely to defender's advantage: -Lurkers -Mines -Tanks These units define TvZ, ZvP, TvP, and TvT. Those Matchups are heavily econ-driven. Contrast those to PvP and ZvZ, which have very little defender advantage. PvP plays out very similarly to what you described - army is priority at almost all times over econ. You have a very valid point. This area is subject to opinion, and I just happen to believe that the macro mechanics allow the player to power over the defender's advantage, if there is one implemented in the future. Prepositioning units is a thing of the past now with the improved AI, and the additional units provided by the defender's advantage are not enough to defend a proper rush. The macro mechanics make producing units so powerful that the slight defender's advantage is overcome by masses of units. It's iffy cause there's no way to test this out. Right now, i want to say macro mechanics are more at fault than the lack of defender's advantage, but it's impossible to tell with 2 variables. On March 22 2010 19:56 micronesia wrote: I think you aren't seeing all that's currently happening in sc2 strategy development. I generally agree with your complaint about how sc2 plays different due to macro mechanics and changing roles of armies, but many players are opting for economy over rushing effective armies more than you seem to realize. If you watched the last zotac cup you noticed terrans fast expanding vs each other (sometimes even to gold patches), zergs fast expanding vs terran (duh), and I've noticed sometimes players pull it off in tvp/pvt. In bw this took years whereas in sc2 it's already starting to happen after a few weeks. I don't think this particular aspect of the problem is currently as bad as you make it out to be. Yea I haven't kept up with that...i still havent faced a player (other than zergs) that have tried FEing against me. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
Tbh an altered high ground mechanic (miss chance uphill) would greatly change how SC2 is played and will make all-in rushes waaay less rewarding and force players to play smarter. And I don't understand how you can say bunkers are useless when they can salvaged for the full amount and help to hold off any early push. Gretorp uses this alot on cheese rushes and giggles his way to victory. | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
On March 22 2010 20:29 Senx wrote: Morrow pretty much does nothing else but FE and manage to get away with it most of the time... Tbh an altered high ground mechanic (miss chance uphill) would greatly change how SC2 is played and will make all-in rushes waaay less rewarding and force players to play smarter. And I don't understand how you can say bunkers are useless when they can salvaged for the full amount and help to hold off any early push. Gretorp uses this alot on cheese rushes and giggles his way to victory. Idk man...players have refined their rushes and now it's almost impossible for me to stop a good rush without marauders and/or bunkers. I've seen some of his old replays, and i haven't come across one where he faces a real rush build. I might've exaggerated when i said bunkers were useless, but everytime i use bunkers i need like 4 cause they're strangely flimsy vs a lot of stuff... | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
On March 22 2010 22:21 lazz wrote: starcraft 1 was a fluke. I too am inclined to believe sc1 was a freak accident that somehow worked incredibly well. Pure luck. I don't think the resource mechanics is to blame for the lack of depth in sc2 right now. As many mentioned before, theres too many "if you don't have strong units yourself early you die to XYZ" plays forcing each player to do rushie techie builds or die. It has been pointed out before in that tl article that the lack of a miss rate from high to low ground is also a big culprit in the problems with sc2. That factor alone contributes a lot to the "who has a bigger army" issue. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I think the ability to mass teir 1, and then go to tier 2 mass drop off 1 base is just annoying and not fun. Not impossible to deal with, just not fun. It feels like every game is the BW equivilant of 8bbs proxygate 4pool vs hard turtle or vs each other. It's just too viable to make these excessive rushes. | ||
|
Exteray
United States1094 Posts
| ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
I agree. All the rush distances are incredibly short, so it's influencing one base play because FEs are just so hard to maintain. On 4 player maps, and I think Desert Oasis (who's rush distance is relatively smaller), I think FEs could work....I mean I know Zergs are still FEing and building fast hatcheries all the time to gain economic advantages. And if anything, a lot of players have been expanding and putting more thought into macro-oriented games. With the introduction of the MULE, Terran is being forced to expo a lot because mules kill minerals extremely quickly. A lot of Terrans have been opting for 2rax expands, which was actually the staple build order in SC1 before the infamous 1rax FE came out. So iono. I think FEs are still very viable, and though unit composition does seem a bit watered down, a lot of people just don't know how to play the game. I mean I know a lot of people here were insanely good at Starcraft 1, and I like to pride myself over the fact that I'm on the Teamliquid.net forums which makes me gosu (haha, I wish), but I think we seriously need to start considering the reality.... We're noobies. All of us. We might've been crazy at Starcraft 1, but in a few years (faster than Starcraft 1), a lot of our strategies are going to become obsolete, and I think the potential for SC2 to become more than what SC1 has been is much more potent because we have so many good players who can start figuring out the game. | ||
|
SturmAddict
Malaysia176 Posts
Idk man...players have refined their rushes and now it's almost impossible for me to stop a good rush without marauders and/or bunkers. I've seen some of his old replays, and i haven't come across one where he faces a real rush build. This is why scouting is extremely important? the reason he doesnt face a real rush build is because he scouted it not coming. All rushes always have early signs, saving larvae, no assimilator, no refinery, delayed oc, drone count, extractor timing, and also how persistant someone in denying the scouting. Efficiency of bunkers are also very reliant on scouting. You can get away with 1-2 bunkers against rushes, if you see it coming, because you can pull SCV's for repair. Zerg has nothing in the way of cost effectively taking down bunkers, and terran can get all the money back once his 2nd base is running | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
RTS games always develop from the extremes into the refined BO's. As chef mentioned, a lot of games revolve around hardcore rushing or hardcore turtling. There is very little development in BO because the rushes are way too good, which in turn leads to very effective turtling. No one wants to take risks, because the extreme builds are that damn good. We stopped BBSing, 4pooling, and proxy gating in BW when we learned people could play straight up and still beat those builds. I don't think i can play anything but defensively vs a 1hatch roach build. Blizz took the fun away when they pretty much built a yellow brick road towards how they want the metagame to develop. | ||
| ||
