|
Something about SC2 is not right.
It has a diverse line up of BO's that work for every MU (after the OC and queen rushing), yet the midgame is more boring than BW.
It encourages the use of more units, compared to the tank/vult, lurk/ling, zlot/goon usage in BW, yet we hate using every single unit in the game at the same time.
With the new terrain and towers, there should be a surge in new midgame and lategame strategies, yet every single game only features one strategy - who has the better army.
With the new macro mechanics, the game should go faster, but all it does it make the earlygame a rush to see who can get the most powerful units.
SC2 is not a true RTS anymore. It focuses too much about the army composition, the BOs, and the strength of the units and ignores the true reason why BW is challenging: it is a game about economics, not army compositions.
First off, I'd like to state that the macro mechanics do not make the game faster or better. They 1) encourage a player to rush to those mechanics, turtle, and produce an army off of one base and 2) take away the economical vs strategical trade-off of the game.
Now I know it took years before the FE was discovered in BW, but we have some of the top BW players in the foreign and Korean community playing SC2, and so far, no one has figured out how to overcome that strategical vs economical barrier. Contrary to popular belief, the macro mechanics are detrimental, not beneficial, to the economic aspect of the game.
The reason FE worked in BW is because of the defenders advantage and absolute timing. A player could build a cc/nex/hatch before massing units because of 3 things: rush distance, production capabilities, and tier2 superiority.
The rush distance between bases accumulated overtime, which adds up to at least 2-3 extra units for the defender.
This means that the defender can also get away with having a lower production rate, provided that he/she makes enough units before the rush comes. Tier 2 units are also much stronger than tier 1 units (micro wise), which discourages massing up tier 1 units. The new macro mechanics fucks with the production rates so much that rushes are way too overpowered, and the only way to combat them is by building an army of the same tier. There is absolutely no advantage by having a better economy because the rushes are that strong.
The trade-off between money and units is a fundamental aspect to BW success and is the reason why it is so popular today. Fights over money with armies are much more entertaining than seeing armies dish it out with an accelerated economy. In SC2, economical play is nonexistent: after almost 3 weeks of beta, the only race that can FE successfully is zerg, and that's because they have the best production rates and do not have to invest nearly as much as terrans and protosses have to in an expansion. Rushes are literally and theoretically impossible to beat without rushing for an army yourself.
In my honest opinion, SC2 has gotten rid of the things that made BW the best RTS ever. The strategical and economical balance in BW was perfect, whereas the balance in SC2 is extremely favored towards massing units.
Tier 2 units and tier 1 units in BW are balanced fairly well because of micro, whereas SC2 tier1/ tier 2 units extremely favor tier 1 units because they're so easy to mass and it's impossible to micro tier 2 units to overcome endless masses of tier 1 units and vice versa. This is a huge problem in the development of FE and fast tech builds in SC2; the advantages of getting better units and better economy are trumped by the huge early game production capabilities of all three races.
In BW, there are three ways to play: get a better economy, make a better army, or get better units.
In SC2, there is only one way to play : make a better army.
 
|
I've definitely seen some pretty fast expansions. Just watch the really good people play (like in the Zotac Cup, ESL, etc...) and notice how quick these people can get out their expos. Its often not quite as fast as bw but still. And its not too uncommon to see people expand like mad either.
|
United States10774 Posts
heh yeah i feel the same way so far but give it a bit more time. as of now, the depth and flexibility does not even come close to bw
|
I think we just need to give the game time. Keep in mind that it is still in the beta phase, and it has been out maybe 3 weeks to a month? Whereas BW has been out quite a while longer. I don't doubt that there will be more and more strategies to emerge in sc2, it just all can't happen at once. Keep in mind there are still new builds and strategies made for BW, and that game has been going on for a looong time 
|
When broodwar came out there wasn't that much depth or complexity to it. If you were protoss you cannon rushed, if you were zerg you 4 pooled, and if you were terran you bunker rushed. It takes time for the game to mature and for people to figure it out. Once it has reached the point where people understand the game on an intimate level you will start to see more complex play. Also blizz hasn't had much time to balance it either.
|
On March 22 2010 17:22 Bibbit wrote:
I've definitely seen some pretty fast expansions. Just watch the really good people play (like in the Zotac Cup, ESL, etc...) and notice how quick these people can get out their expos. Its often not quite as fast as bw but still. And its not too uncommon to see people expand like mad either.
I've seen fast hatcheries. Totally doable because hatches produce fighting units and serve an economical purpose.
I haven't seen fast nex because cannons suck.
I haven't seen fast cc used in a while because bunkers are almost as bad as cannons, and investing 275/150 in a PF is too expensive in the early game.
In the case of T and P, they are forced to build up production and army size before expanding. I have not seen a single game where T or P builds up their econ by expanding before building an army.
Expanding like mad is --after-- you get a huge army.
And yes, i know everyone just bunker/cannon rushed and 4pooled back in the day, and yes, we figured out how to beat that.
The problem that is prevalent in every single SC2 game is that no one can beat the rush without rushing themselves.
I'm fairly certain that we've grown past the 6pool, BBS, and proxy 2gate stages. However, we're still stuck in the 2rax reactor/core, 2gaterobo w/ warp, and fast roaches stage. No one has found a way to beat these rushes without rushing for units ourselves. The rate of production makes these rushes too strong to beat by getting a better econ or by getting higher tech units. That's my biff with SC2, is that the macro mechanics kill the prospect of FEing or a true fast tech build.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
There are a bunch of replays on ygosu of kkong going 15 nex and winning PvZ (including one vs Sen and one vs Freedom)
|
as someone already stated, give it more time. Time will tell whether this will be a new broodwar or a new wc3, there's just no way of telling that with the current level of gameknowledge and also the game is still just in beta (:. I still think it doesn't hurt to speculate on it though.
|
On March 22 2010 17:35 heyoka wrote:
There are a bunch of replays on ygosu of kkong going 15 nex and winning PvZ (including one vs Sen and one vs Freedom)
I can't read korean and google translate is throwing me around in circles...T_T
I agree that time will tell if SC2 will become the next BW or WC3. Currently, the macro mechanics are definitely OP. It's just not possible to live without the macro mechanics. And after the mechanics, you have the threat of dealing with a rush, so you're forced to get an army. Now that you have an army, you have to make it stronger because a strong army + tier2 units will beat a normal tier 1 army. So after 10 minutes into the game, people finally decide to expand. It's the same damn thing over and over: who has the better army.
At least in BW, it was who had the better army, who had the better micro (although that point is moot in SC2), or who had the better economy.
|
Fights over money with armies are much more entertaining than seeing armies dish it out with an accelerated economy.
best sentence in your blog, and explains the difference between sc1 and sc2
|
You can't write everything off yet. We've played for almost 4 weeks and nobody even knows what the game is fully capable of yet. The game is still in beta for 1, and there are imbalances to be worked out. Also, there are 2 more expansions that plan to release new units and crap to further this. ALSO, remember that SC and SCBW were getting balance patches for years. ALSO, note that these blizzard maps may not be optimal for the kidns of strategies the game should be utilizing. (almost all of them have some kind of gimmick, destructible guarding a base, backdoor, tight chokes, loooong distances, etc). Remember that [in scbw] standard style and strats were worked out on basics maps, Then when that stagnated we brought in the gimmicks and new stuff to maps. Blizzard is kinda doing it all at once, and it's overwhelming. Just give it time.
And yes, I've played games recently where protosses FE'd (while I was already committed to teching/econ) and I double expo'd. (just like the meta game of bw now)
|
@Charliemurphy
Yes, I know that BW and vanilla were receiving minor (by minor, i mean unit and upgrade) balance patches for quite a while. Maps do have a substantial effect on strategies, and standard style and strats were developed on basic maps and altered to suit newer maps.
Expansions only add to the chaos of imbalances, and right now, every strategy revolves around the army, not the economy. Having to create an army, making sure it's better than my opponent's, and then expanding goes against what RTS' should be about -real-time strategy, not tactial superiority.
In SC2, we're talking about balancing economics with strategical development. Blizzard enunciated the strategical part of it so much that they made economics play a secondary role. This is much more difficult compared to balancing trivial unit imbalances. Unit imbalances can be fixed with patches; foundational imbalances must be fixed right now before they develop the game any further. Yeah, SC2 is in beta and everything is susceptible to change. I'm just saying they need to fix this.
|
i agree with the OP, but i dont have a beta key so I cant add any insight. I hope this problem gets fixed before the game actually comes out.
it seems like making defensive structures a bit stronger might solve the problem though, in bw for example cannons/bunkers/sunkens make short work of tier1 units
|
I'm pretty sure iirc the early days before replays, so called pros were doing the stupidest bgh noob style masser strats. Same shit that is happening in sc2 to an extent.
|
On March 22 2010 17:23 OneOther wrote:
heh yeah i feel the same way so far but give it a bit more time. as of now, the depth and flexibility does not even come close to bw
Then again the strategies and meta-game of BW has evolved for over 10 years.
|
Those noob style masser strats eventually lost to more efficient, economical strats. Right now, there is no other way to overcome the masser strats other than to mass yourself. We eventually learned in BW that we can beat masser strats by sneaking in a cc/nex/hatch before they atked. After trying to apply what we learned in BW and basic economics to SC2, it's near impossible to pull off anything before massing an army.
Those that are saying that it will take time for the meta game to evolve are implying that the game is evolving. Right now, nothing is changing. Changing unit composition is not going to solve our problems; Blizz needs to change the macro mechanics or else we're going to be stuck here for a long time. That's what beta is for, but i haven't seen them touch the macro mechanics at all.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
The reps are here that was silly for me not to link it to begin with
http://sc2.ygosu.com/sc2_replay/
(all the kkong reps I saw were him 15 nexing pvz but I don't know if all of them on that page are)
|
I saw one of the kkong reps and he barely got away with the FE (damn banelings are strong). I watched another TvT and a TvP, and they exhibited the exact qualities i described: everyone rushes, and the only way to stop it is by investing a lot in static defense or by making an army. Expansions were always after the 10 minute mark and the expanding player usually either lost terribly or already won the game.
|
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.
User was warned for this post
|
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.
|
United States24670 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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...
|
|
|
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.
|
In my heart, I agree with the OP. This is exactly the conclusion I've come to from my games. However, I think that the maps are to blame as well. Most of them really, really encourage 1base play, so it doesn't help that the rest of the game is telling you to 1base as well. I've done pretty well with Protoss zealot into expansion with cannons that cover both the nat and the main ramp at the same time... But there's only like 2 maps that you can do that with. In that way I was able to actually 2stargate, with my regular army still building. Then randomly the zergs army appeared in my main for no reason (are nydus wurms instant?) and I had to defend that... but at least I didn't have to be a pussy in my main defending because I had my air army to counter. It was probably the only fun game of sc2 I'd played, but it was still kinda dumb.
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.
|
Does Fakesteve work for Razer? On the promo video from teh Razor website's IMBA page... he appeared in it :o
|
@Chef:
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.
|
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
|
Rushes do have early signs. But these rushes are extremely powerful, not like in BW where scv/marine micro > all cheese. It's very difficult to stop these without teching straight to tier 1.5. I could have all the bunkers in the world; it still doesnt change the fact that i need marauders to kill roaches (or 20 marines and a lot of bunkers 6 minutes into the game).
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
