|
In the last blog I wrote, I articulated some of the problems I felt HotS had in terms of how units were being designed. Unfortunately the blog painted a pretty negative view of SC2 in general, and the resulting discussion mostly became why Brood War is better than SC2.
To repent, I like to also write about the many things (game design wise) that are done right in SC2, and many things that have been improved from Brood War. In essence I didn't write the previous blog because I hated Dustin Browder or Starcraft 2, I only had some very specific beef with a very specific point in the approach to unit design. After all, Blizzard doesn't hire stupid people. They are a fantastic game company with wisdom and experience in game making we normal people cannot even fathom. I can only try to appreciate with my limited knowledge all the little things they do to make their games great.
1) UI Improvements!
Wow, is there a big leap in user interface from Brood War (and Warcraft 3) to Starcraft 2. If you think about it, Blizzard has made it easy for the viewer to absorb absolutely massive amounts of information without being overwhelmed by it all.
A lot of these improvements are based on third-party plugins developed for Brood War, but Blizzard also has their own innovations. Most notably the observer tabs allow you to cycle through virtually every bit of useful information you can possibly want about a game. The in-game timer allows players to actively gauge timings and builds, accelerating the rate at which progamers develop builds and evolve the game. I also think the recent addition of the pop-up resource values for cancelled structures is fantastic, as it is rather unobtrusive but removes the 324234 billion times when observers are puzzled as to whether or not a building is cancelled in time. I think it would also be cool if the value also pops up for cancelled upgrades. And if you recall, in Brood War workers did not have a hold position function. Now they do.
So far, the way Blizzard builds upon their UI in every successive RTS game they make has proven that sometimes, more is still better.
2) Pathfinding improvements
It's a requirement for all sequels to have better AI than the previous game. But the way improved pathfinding is actually implemented in SC2 is actually a massive improvement far above and beyond what normal sequels do in other games. Most obviously we no longer have dragoon and goliath level AI. Far more importantly is the way groups of units naturally clump up in Starcraft 2.
Why is the clumping so brilliant? Well, two reasons. For one, you no longer have the ridiculous conga line of units in Brood War. If you recall, in Brood War, even if you hotkey and use 1a2a3a4a with your zerglings, they will still somehow manage to all run single file to a destination. In SC2, they clump instead and arrive at a destination at the same time. And two, which isn't as obvious, the clumping is actually an APM sink in battles! Clumped marines must be split versus banelings, tank fire, and colossi. Clumped zealots and sentries must be split versus EMP. And I still wonder why a lot of pro Zergs don't preemptively split their banelings versus tank fire. Terrans have become so good at targetting bane clumps with their tanks that huge numbers of banes have actually become a liability because of how expensive they are to replace.
Essentially, clumping has produced a new battle mechanic which is used to separate good players from the best. It shows that you don't have to be fast ALL the time, but in large battles where it counts, you better be able to put on a burst of speed in your hand actions. And this APM sink is far more interesting than how fast you can click on your individual production facilities to make units... well, you'll see below.
3) Multiple Building Selection (MBS)/Unlimited Unit Selection
Okay, this part is going to piss off a shitload of die-hard Brood War fans. We've already had tons of discussion about this pre-Beta, so if you consider this a step back instead of a step forward, skip this section please. I won't be arguing with anyone here.
Unlimited unit selection is something that's been around in RTS games since the first Command & Conquer came out for DOS in 1994. For Brood War, Blizzard decided to forgo this feature to add strategic depth to their game, so that you're forced to think about how to split units into groups. In its time, this decision seemed the wiser choice because it added strategic depth in how to group your units, and ultimately (as Brood War fans like to point out) was a huge APM sink for higher leveled players.
But the constant 12 unit limit is fundamentally flawed in terms of game design. What it actually did was force an artificial and arbitrary restraint on the players. If you think about it, it's kind of silly that you can have 12 battlecruisers in one group but also only have 12 zerglings or 12 marines in one group. Why not empower the players to make their own decisions? As Starcraft 2 has shown, even with unlimited selection the better player will still group his units to multiple hotkeys, and he will make smarter hotkey choices than the weaker player. The skill gap is maintained, and the game play is far smoother. A win-win decision by Blizzard.
Multiple building selection came from WarCraft 3, although I'm surprised that it actually even took that long for such a feature to be implemented. With SC2's 200 supply limit, this feature is even more powerful for SC than for WC, so Blizzard was making a major design decision in its implementation. And it was the right decision. If you look at the current Starcraft 2 scene, there is still huge differences in macro between top players and plenty of APM sinks in the game without needing to go back to your base every 30 seconds to individually click on each production facility. More APM is still better. And yet on the other hand, MBS has allowed certain, slower players with good judgement and efficiency such as SjoW to compete professionally. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.
4) Single Player Shenanigans
Okay, so the story sucked. But in terms of game play WoL's single player campaign is fantastic. Separate unit sets for campaign and multiplayer is a genius solution. Plus, the ability to wander around the ship between missions provides a nice break in between missions. The variety of missions have been improved, too.
5) Actual game and unit improvements.
Even die-hard Brood War fans will admit that at least part of the brilliance of Brood War is based on luck. Blizzard did not foresee what their game was truly capable of during design. Starcraft 2 has the fortune of having the actual goal of being designed for e-sports, so Blizzard can actually make a conscious effort to weed out units with questionable usefulness like the Scout. Here are some genuine improvements.
a) Nukes! No longer a gimmick, they are now actually a useful tool for zoning and harassment. By removing the supply requirement and making them cheaper and easier to spot, they've earned a specific role in the Terran arsenal that's still rare enough in games to be special.
b)Ghosts, by extension. Rarely used in Brood War (although whenever they were used it was spectacular). Now they're OP for many, but it's a fixable problem. Main point is they are now useful and an essential spell caster.
c)Banelings, probably the most well-designed unit in SC2 right now. They're kind of like the lurker and the reaver for Zerg, but better. They're exactly the type of high-risk, high-reward tool that make games exciting. They are weak enough that real skill is required for efficiency, but strong enough that in the hands of a skill player they can destroy far more than they cost. They can be used to flank, to bomb, to mine. They are versatile, exciting to use, and exciting to see. Finally, the way they are used directly pit the skills of the user against the skill of the opponent, as the opponent needs every bit as much skill to avoid losing too many units.
d) Nexus/Orbital/Queen features
Now all 3 worker producing structures feature unique ways for races to boost their economy/army. The better the player, the more consistently they use the features. As Day[9] points out, right now Zerg pros are becoming stronger because they are more consistently hitting their larva injects, resulting in faster droning and more units in their armies. On the other hand, Protoss players are stilll regularly seen with high energy nexuses. Maybe that's why they're performing relatively poorly?
The only design flaw I will point out is that compared to Terran and Protoss, Zerg's special ability, larva inject, is far more punishing if neglected. If a Zerg player forgets to inject in a while, he can't just inject the same hatchery multiple times. Instead, the queen will have excess energy. On the other hand, Protoss and Terran can both expend their orbital and nexus energy all at once and still see the same overall return in benefits with multiple mule drops or chrono boosts. My remedy proposal is to have the MULE ability on a timer (like Blizzard did with the Thor strike cannons before switching back). That way, a Terran can call down a MULE every 30 seconds, but if he forgets he won't be able to still call down 4 at the same time. Chronoboosts seem okay at the moment, since Protosses still haven't figured out how to use them regularly and saving up chrono boosts is a legitimate strategy.
e) Unique Dropship Abilities
I think this is also a cool way to give players more value for their units without providing an overwhelming amount of "gimmicky" tools. Zergs don't gain any bonus abilities to overlords, but they can morph an overseer for detection. Terran medivacs are an essential unit when going bio, which provides a huge incentive to use drops. Protoss warp prism play seems to be on the rise, and most people agree that they are a very cool unit with a lot of potential.
I will say that one possible balancing solution for Terran is to reduce medivac capacity to 6 slots, so they can carry only 6 marines or 3 marauders. Blizzard can still make tanks take up 3 slots so medivacs can still carry 2 tanks, and thors to 6 slots so they can still be carried by medivacs.
f) Zoning capabilities
This was around in Brood War, but not in the same capacity as WoL. Force fields, creep, Planetaries, Thors, these all provide ways for races to occupy or deny space on the map. They do not completely prohibit an opponent from moving into a space, but enemies will incur a significant disadvantage when they try. Another fantastic design choice that adds depth to the game.
g) Brood Lords
These, in my opinion, are the true spiritual successors to Carriers in Brood War. These are the "oh shit" units that technically can be countered, but it is kind of difficult to do so. All you people who lament the deletion of the Carrier in HotS, all I can say is you better switch to Zerg, buddy. Interestingly enough, these will become even more devastating when combined with the Viper, because unlike Dark Swarm and the Guardian in Brood War, the Viper's ability won't protect units under it from Brood Lords. They're Carriers, but they're not. The brilliance of the carrier role is preserved in a unit that's drastically different.
h) Hellions
This is kind of a personal revelation. In the first months of SC2, everyone kind of saw the potential of the unit, but nobody knew how to use it. It's technically the vulture replacement but the micro function is different. While vultures could attack-move into a group of marines and slaughter them, Hellions actually traded evenly or worse against marines if simply attack moved. Then BoxeR came along with the SlayerS Terrans, and showed everyone how terrifying this unit can be. Its potential for devastating worker lines is reminiscent of the Reaver minus scarab duds, making for very exciting game play.
i) The Archon Toilet (RIP)
I understand why Blizzard nerfed this feature of the Mothership. But damn was it cool. These are the kind of nerd-chill inducing moves that make e-Sports spectacular, they're kind of like the court-long hail mary shots at the end of a tied Basketball game that actually make it. I wish Blizzard had tried harder to preserve the move while simultaneously balancing it. I've also heard that Protosses can place force fields around a vortex to contain armies during their invincibility stage to have it remain clumped, but I've yet to see it in a professional match.
That's all I can think of for now. Basically Starcraft 2 does many, many things right. It's not necessarily a better or worse game than Starcraft 1, but it is worthy of being the successor to Brood War. People shouldn't hate Blizzard or think that they've lost their touch. In terms of game design, Blizzard is still at the top of their game. They are grandmasters of their craft.
 
|
Good points in both your blogs,
I agree that these features do improve the game in a significant way.
Creep spread is a cool mechanic.
... I won't comment on which game is better tho.
|
LOL you're right and i hate you for arguing on both sides of the argument.
|
It is an improvement indeed, but it makes the game less enjoyable for me for some reason, I think for zerg you should be able to select all your larva and morph them in 1 click like in bw (in exchange for not being able to select multiple hatcheries):>.
Also CecilSunkure had a really cool idea about limiting control group size through the interface, which would be amazing if blizzard implemented it, since it would let people choose.
|
A few points I feel should be made:
"And this APM sink is far more interesting than how fast you can click on your individual production facilities to make units... well, you'll see below."
You forget that in Brood War, there's a similar APM sink for AVOIDING conga-line attacks. You can't say that anti-clumping in SC2 has replaced the APM required to macro in BW.... because that simply isn't true
You mention zoning abilities, but BW had a great emphasis on space control:
Siege tanks, spider mines, lurkers, defilers, and reavers are all great examples of how this can be created. In TvZ, you have this cool dynamic where the terran army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place in free space but the zerg army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place under dark swarm. In TvP it's all about space control where the terran uses siege tanks and vultures to slowly creep out on the map until the 200/200 ball of death is reached. Typically, if the protoss engages vs sieged tanks with mines in front, terran wins, but if those two factors aren't present, protoss wins. PvZ has huge emphasis on map control with both lurkers and reavers--typical macro ZvP sees zerg droning up massively behind lurker/sunken/spore choke points which the protoss simply can't break cost effectively, but conversely the protoss can also build cannon/reaver/HT defenses that the zerg can't break cost effectively. Battles can often be decided by a number of space-related issues: is the zerg attacking into the protoss? (important: are the lurkers burrowed) is dark swarm present? how does the protoss have his units arranged? (this is especially important vs lurker contains, where the dragoon/templar has to clear out as many lurkers as possible, then the zealots can join the fight)
I'm not sure I believe you when you say that WoL has more of an emphasis on space control than BW.
Also, for the reasons described above, I don't think that banelings are better than lurkers. And you can't really compare them to reavers, since reavers are most similar to the colossus, and I think everyone can agree on which unit is more interesting between those two.
|
Melee unit AI is horrible in Starcraft 2, and the way that units clump only serves to exaggerate it even further. It's most evident when you attack buildings with lings, so many lings just running around aimlessly instead of circling around the building it's unreal.
|
Agree about a few things, disagree about a few.
1) Pretty cool indeed, but overused. I kinda agree with Sayle that obs mode from minilauncher is a good middleground between seeing nothing and killing the suspense.
2) Balls are terrible. They're terrible to watch, and they do not make sense.
Plus, there are other games with better AI than BW that don't use it. I've got a friend who is a CoH fan, and that's what he hates the most about the game, so it's not only a BW fanboy argument.
Plus you say that it helps separate players because you have to split. And before you complained about lings congo line. Well, yeah, in both case you have to micro to overcome the AI.
But in SC2, they only kind (yeah, I simplify a bit, I know) of micro is more or less having a good arc, or unclumping your units. In bw, both can be necesseray (see for instance marine vs lurkers and marine vs mutas : in the first case you need an arc, in the second you need to clump). BW ai offer much more possibilties for improvement, and I'm not talking about spam clicking during the 5 sec of battles...
Finally, it forced to nerf AoE spells, which is extremely sad... Well, unless you think of the collosus obviously.
3) Ok you won't argue, which I understand, but it's arguable. Perfect. Honestly, I feel neutral about this.
5) a) Yeah that's cool
b) The ghost is indeed an interesting unit because it's powerful, and it requires a bit of micro. Let's pray it won't change.
c) They're ok indeed, but I really dislike there massability in ZvT. Nevertheless, I'd say that beginning of the game ZvZ with ling/baneling is the most exciting thing to watch in SC2 at the moment, a pity it transitions into roach^^
d) Queens are a good apm sink, in fact macro as zerg in sc2 is pretty hard thank to them. But both their abillities are now brainers, especially since zerg players have discovered than you can make more than once per hatchery.
Nevertheless, I feell they rendered zerg macro way less unique, since larva shortage is much easier to come by. Zerg uniqueness is greatly reduced, and the way they macro is way more boring/less strategically deep.
Mules are uninteresting, chrono boost is great but it needs to be better imho, because at the moment you don't really need it past the 5th minute mark to be a good player, which is a shame. A bit too much of a no brainer too.
e) Creep spread is a no brainer apm sink, totally uninteresting. Space occupation was much more subtle and strategic in BW (cf DS and mines mainly).
FF sucks because in a lot of case because you can't always micro around it. They were the best idea in WoL imho though, but they should have life or something so that they create interactions, instead of removing them.
f) Warp prism are great. Medivac render drop obvious and not risky, in the sense than you'll always invest in dropship. It's arguable, but I like the BW way better.
g) Broodlords are reworked gardians. They require about the same amount of micro, which means that carriers were much more interesting (don't listen to idra saying carrier micro is easy... it's not the hardest thing in BW, but he's friend with someone who only massed tank... :p). All in all, they're cool, but not as much as you sell them.
h) Hellions are cool, but less versatile than vultures. I miss mines. But in all honestly, I think we exchanged a good unit for a good one, which is what a sequel is about =)
i) that was cool, but a bit too easy to pull off i think. Might be a Blizzard nerf I agree with for once.
|
Point 1-3 is most of the reason why BW has evolved for so long and continues to do so though. Not that SC2 should be the same, but it doesn't really replace any of that difficulty either so it just cannot have the similar lifespan of strategy evolution. So i wouldn't all it an improvement, it's just different.
Even regardless of that future issue, why should Blizzard be given credit for putting MBS and other very blatant things in? I mean seriously games had that back when SC1 was released anyway. And the pathfinding in my opinion, still isn't that good anyway. You see units glitching animation and jerking back and forth all over the place. It's very easy to create supposedly 'good' pathfinding when you let units clump almost to where they are overlapping and even can push each other out of the way. You ended up writing like 12 paragraphs praising Blizzard for doing things that are not praise-worthy at all.
Also i doubt the 12 unit limit was an attempt to make people use groups at all, more like just so you can easily fit 12 wireframes at the bottom; i think it's very likely it was just that and nothing actually clever. It was total luck how it turned out and the current Blizzard if given the same situation would have fucked up BW massively so it's lucky they didn't try to be so 'active' in changing the game to exactly how they wanted it.
Also you criticize BW for 'artificial APM sinks' but apparently forcing units to clump so they have to be split as an APM sink is actually just fine? Personally i don't think anything is 'artificial', it's just part of controlling the game and it happens to be difficult. It's like combo's in fighting games, pulling them off is part of the game not just making the decision. There's tons of things you could simplify even further in SC2 if you want to try this argument, like why even make people select any production facilities at all to produce units? Or why not be able to queue units infinitely? That is controlling the game, just as selecting each building individually was controlling BW. Just because it's harder doesn't mean you can make up a completely arbitrary point where it's artificial or not.
That's just a few random thoughts, i could go on really but i think you are really stretching for things to praise. Like i really don't feel like i should be impressed or praising the fact that Blizzard could make units like the Hellion. It's simplistic as hell. I'm not necessarily criticizing here that units should be better, it fits a role and does a job but it's not actually worthy of praise. I've played enough RTS to think up re-imagined versions of units all day. Even banelings are bascially land-scourge. Good job Blizzard for that i guess?
|
f) Zoning capabilities
This was around in Brood War, but not in the same capacity as WoL. Force fields, creep, Planetaries, Thors, these all provide ways for races to occupy or deny space on the map. They do not completely prohibit an opponent from moving into a space, but enemies will incur a significant disadvantage when they try. Another fantastic design choice that adds depth to the game.
I have a problem with this.
One of the big complaints with SC2 is the lack of space controlling units (Lurker, Dark Swarm, DWeb etc). In this aspect BW far surpasses SC2.
|
Oh i didn't even notice the paragraph about zoning which apparently shows you don't know what you are talking about.
|
Well written post, and I agree with you on a few points, but I don't see SC2's amoeba-like unit pathing as an improvement so much as a design choice. A bold one. A straight improvement would have been to make it easier to move armies up and down ramps but retain the tendency for groups of units to spread outward while on the move (Don't ask me how this would be accomplished). The decision to instead have armies automatically clump into dense balls has a far-reaching impact on how the game is played and, most notably for SC2's value as a spectator sport, how the game looks. It didn't necessarily have to be a change for the worse mind you - sometimes different is just different - but Browder's team should have fully embraced the difference rather than trying to fit round pegs, those being BW units and spells, into a square hole: SC2's pathing engine.
When you look the game's development history it's a long list of concessions and compromises, a gradual watering down of the qualities that made BW great. This is because Blizzard's task was something like trying to appropriate the gameplay of Doom into a shooter with a cover system and regenerating health. It's to their credit that they were partially successful, but I believe it would have made more sense, and produced a better game, to start completely from scratch. That, or coded a more BW-like pathing algorithm.
Edit: And as has been said, the need to split units was not invented by Browder. That existed in BW as well, but there it was just one aspect of army control among many rather than the all-important skill it is in SC2.
|
On October 26 2011 04:27 corumjhaelen wrote:2) Balls are terrible. They're terrible to watch, and they do not make sense. Plus, there are other games with better AI than BW that don't use it. I've got a friend who is a CoH fan, and that's what he hates the most about the game, so it's not only a BW fanboy argument.
Agree so much on this point. Don't know why people act like this is exclusively a BW complaint. Clumped up armies just look bad from a spectator standpoint. Clarity is extremely important for e-Sports, and you can't have clarity if everything is clustered up in tight packs with spell/weapon effects turning everything into a clusterfuck.
Different but worse isn't better, better is better.
|
On October 26 2011 04:19 xxpack09 wrote:
A few points I feel should be made:
"And this APM sink is far more interesting than how fast you can click on your individual production facilities to make units... well, you'll see below."
You forget that in Brood War, there's a similar APM sink for AVOIDING conga-line attacks. You can't say that anti-clumping in SC2 has replaced the APM required to macro in BW.... because that simply isn't true
You mention zoning abilities, but BW had a great emphasis on space control:
Siege tanks, spider mines, lurkers, defilers, and reavers are all great examples of how this can be created. In TvZ, you have this cool dynamic where the terran army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place in free space but the zerg army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place under dark swarm. In TvP it's all about space control where the terran uses siege tanks and vultures to slowly creep out on the map until the 200/200 ball of death is reached. Typically, if the protoss engages vs sieged tanks with mines in front, terran wins, but if those two factors aren't present, protoss wins. PvZ has huge emphasis on map control with both lurkers and reavers--typical macro ZvP sees zerg droning up massively behind lurker/sunken/spore choke points which the protoss simply can't break cost effectively, but conversely the protoss can also build cannon/reaver/HT defenses that the zerg can't break cost effectively. Battles can often be decided by a number of space-related issues: is the zerg attacking into the protoss? (important: are the lurkers burrowed) is dark swarm present? how does the protoss have his units arranged? (this is especially important vs lurker contains, where the dragoon/templar has to clear out as many lurkers as possible, then the zealots can join the fight)
I'm not sure I believe you when you say that WoL has more of an emphasis on space control than BW.
Also, for the reasons described above, I don't think that banelings are better than lurkers. And you can't really compare them to reavers, since reavers are most similar to the colossus, and I think everyone can agree on which unit is more interesting between those two.
I think I was a bit vague on the language when I talked about zoning. I actually specifically mean WoL improves in ways you can zone without needing your entire army somewhere. For example, creep and planetary fortresses are semi-permanent fixtures that are hard to get rid of, but allows the player to take control of a place without needing his or her army to be there. That's an aspect I think is more unique to SC2.
I don't really count lurkers and siege lines as zoning in the same way because (aside from TvT) these are main army composition units that take up supply. Most of the time when you're engaging these units (and even when you're engaging minefields) you're basically clashing armies. If the enemy has his army somewhere and you don't want to engage it, it's more about positioning than zoning.
When you compare a planetary fortress to a couple of lurkers or six cannons defending an expo, the planetary is capable of holding off far more (30 supply armies by itself) than lurkers or six cannons (even with a high templar for support). It takes an army of overwhelming force to destroy a planetary surrounded by SCVs. That's the type of zoning I mean. Similarly, when Terran armies move onto creep most of the time it's a dedicated decision to trade that army efficiently against the Zerg's. There's no running away once you're on creep, it's either you win or you lose that army. Protoss forcefields are slightly different, but they also allow a very small investment in resources to hold off entire armies from entering an area. Dark swarm allows you to zone an area, but only if you have other units in the area to pose a threat.
Another difference between some of the WoL zoning and the Brood War zoning, such as scarabs, mines, and dark swarm, is that most of the time WoL zoning isn't immediate, but takes time to set up. You have to morph a planetary, you have to spread creep. If the enemy is right on top of a spot, you're not going to have a ton of overlords surrounding the enemy army dropping creep, and you probably won't get your planetary up in time to matter. In Brood War you can immediately plop down a dark swarm or drop mines in the middle of a battle as a direct combat ability.
I also differentiate zoning from map control when one player has a number of fast moving units on the map and can threaten a counter in such a way that deters another player from moving out with his stronger force.
The closest thing to WoL type zoning is probably spider mines.
|
Boring uninspired unit design that results in boring gameplay, but I guess he made the UI better from WC3 which was an 8 year old game so he must be doing pretty amazing
|
Lurkers take up supply, but one of the greatest strength of zerg in ZvT is mainly that you don't have to have your wall army in a singe place to defend it, two lurkers are enough midgame, and if you had defiler and a few lings, it's more or less always enough. Supply is a lot less relevant in that match up btw... With ten supplies, you can more or less hold the whole terran army, I don't know what you need more.
Planetary fortress are built, and yeah, you don't use them anymore, sooooo interesting, gotta love static defend.
Creep spread is completely boring from the zerg standpoint, why would you not do it ? Yeah it forces terran to pay more attention when he pushes, that's pretty good, but so did lurkers in fact, even in small numbers...
|
Great blog, it's not often you meet someone who can see the both sides of perspective. I do see the potential in SC2 like you said; I actually find it interesting Blizzard managed to cover most of the bases that make for wonderful RTS using completely different methods than they used for BW. You have to give props to them for at least trying.
|
On October 26 2011 05:17 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 04:19 xxpack09 wrote:
A few points I feel should be made:
"And this APM sink is far more interesting than how fast you can click on your individual production facilities to make units... well, you'll see below."
You forget that in Brood War, there's a similar APM sink for AVOIDING conga-line attacks. You can't say that anti-clumping in SC2 has replaced the APM required to macro in BW.... because that simply isn't true
You mention zoning abilities, but BW had a great emphasis on space control:
Siege tanks, spider mines, lurkers, defilers, and reavers are all great examples of how this can be created. In TvZ, you have this cool dynamic where the terran army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place in free space but the zerg army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place under dark swarm. In TvP it's all about space control where the terran uses siege tanks and vultures to slowly creep out on the map until the 200/200 ball of death is reached. Typically, if the protoss engages vs sieged tanks with mines in front, terran wins, but if those two factors aren't present, protoss wins. PvZ has huge emphasis on map control with both lurkers and reavers--typical macro ZvP sees zerg droning up massively behind lurker/sunken/spore choke points which the protoss simply can't break cost effectively, but conversely the protoss can also build cannon/reaver/HT defenses that the zerg can't break cost effectively. Battles can often be decided by a number of space-related issues: is the zerg attacking into the protoss? (important: are the lurkers burrowed) is dark swarm present? how does the protoss have his units arranged? (this is especially important vs lurker contains, where the dragoon/templar has to clear out as many lurkers as possible, then the zealots can join the fight)
I'm not sure I believe you when you say that WoL has more of an emphasis on space control than BW.
Also, for the reasons described above, I don't think that banelings are better than lurkers. And you can't really compare them to reavers, since reavers are most similar to the colossus, and I think everyone can agree on which unit is more interesting between those two. I think I was a bit vague on the language when I talked about zoning. I actually specifically mean WoL improves in ways you can zone without needing your entire army somewhere. For example, creep and planetary fortresses are semi-permanent fixtures that are hard to get rid of, but allows the player to take control of a place without needing his or her army to be there. That's an aspect I think is more unique to SC2. I don't really count lurkers and siege lines as zoning in the same way because (aside from TvT) these are main army composition units that take up supply. Most of the time when you're engaging these units (and even when you're engaging minefields) you're basically clashing armies. If the enemy has his army somewhere and you don't want to engage it, it's more about positioning than zoning. When you compare a planetary fortress to a couple of lurkers or six cannons defending an expo, the planetary is capable of holding off far more (30 supply armies by itself) than lurkers or six cannons (even with a high templar for support). It takes an army of overwhelming force to destroy a planetary surrounded by SCVs. That's the type of zoning I mean. Similarly, when Terran armies move onto creep most of the time it's a dedicated decision to trade that army efficiently against the Zerg's. There's no running away once you're on creep, it's either you win or you lose that army. Protoss forcefields are slightly different, but they also allow a very small investment in resources to hold off entire armies from entering an area. Dark swarm allows you to zone an area, but only if you have other units in the area to pose a threat. Another difference between some of the WoL zoning and the Brood War zoning, such as scarabs, mines, and dark swarm, is that most of the time WoL zoning isn't immediate, but takes time to set up. You have to morph a planetary, you have to spread creep. If the enemy is right on top of a spot, you're not going to have a ton of overlords surrounding the enemy army dropping creep, and you probably won't get your planetary up in time to matter. In Brood War you can immediately plop down a dark swarm or drop mines in the middle of a battle as a direct combat ability. I also differentiate zoning from map control when one player has a number of fast moving units on the map and can threaten a counter in such a way that deters another player from moving out with his stronger force. The closest thing to WoL type zoning is probably spider mines.
There was recently a good flash vs stats replay on fighting spirit (the 1st one, not the 2nd one). I suggest you watch it right now.
You may be right about WoL taking more time to set up, but in my personal opinion, it takes no skill to decide whether a CC will turn into a PF, and even creep spread is more of a APM sink than anything (you don't actually plan where creep spread goes). Dark Swarm required you to consume lings, and you had to have good placement of dark swarm. Same with mines.
Actually I'm not even sure your definition of zoning is good. Why would you want it so that you don't have to pay attention to something? Atm, even the pros are saying that we need a harder game. And actually I'm in favor of a more dynamic game where things are always moving, and the army isn't everywhere at once.
And xxpack09 is completely right. You need to "spend APM" (micro) to avoid a head on confrontation into a wall of lurker spines.
APM honestly has nothing to do w/ being able to macro properly or not. What's required is a good sense of timing. I honestly think MBS doesn't really change much, unless you completely suck at clicking things in organized rows. BW just requires a little bit more effort. Battles in BW took longer anyways, so not looking at the battle for 2 seconds wouldn't result in your army melting (Unless you A-moved your goons into a wall of tanks/mines  ).
(Man i think i probably just contradicted myself 27 times, but that's because BW can be many things at once lol).
|
I won't be arguing with anyone here.
...
But the constant 12 unit limit is fundamentally flawed in terms of game design. What it actually did was force an artificial and arbitrary restraint on the players. If you think about it, it's kind of silly that you can have 12 battlecruisers in one group but also only have 12 zerglings or 12 marines in one group.
I'm not going to argue here except to make this one really weak argument. But please don't point it out because I'm not here to argue.
Okkkkk...
|
On October 26 2011 08:02 Nazza wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 05:17 Newbistic wrote:On October 26 2011 04:19 xxpack09 wrote:
A few points I feel should be made:
"And this APM sink is far more interesting than how fast you can click on your individual production facilities to make units... well, you'll see below."
You forget that in Brood War, there's a similar APM sink for AVOIDING conga-line attacks. You can't say that anti-clumping in SC2 has replaced the APM required to macro in BW.... because that simply isn't true
You mention zoning abilities, but BW had a great emphasis on space control:
Siege tanks, spider mines, lurkers, defilers, and reavers are all great examples of how this can be created. In TvZ, you have this cool dynamic where the terran army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place in free space but the zerg army will win by a LARGE margin if the battle takes place under dark swarm. In TvP it's all about space control where the terran uses siege tanks and vultures to slowly creep out on the map until the 200/200 ball of death is reached. Typically, if the protoss engages vs sieged tanks with mines in front, terran wins, but if those two factors aren't present, protoss wins. PvZ has huge emphasis on map control with both lurkers and reavers--typical macro ZvP sees zerg droning up massively behind lurker/sunken/spore choke points which the protoss simply can't break cost effectively, but conversely the protoss can also build cannon/reaver/HT defenses that the zerg can't break cost effectively. Battles can often be decided by a number of space-related issues: is the zerg attacking into the protoss? (important: are the lurkers burrowed) is dark swarm present? how does the protoss have his units arranged? (this is especially important vs lurker contains, where the dragoon/templar has to clear out as many lurkers as possible, then the zealots can join the fight)
I'm not sure I believe you when you say that WoL has more of an emphasis on space control than BW.
Also, for the reasons described above, I don't think that banelings are better than lurkers. And you can't really compare them to reavers, since reavers are most similar to the colossus, and I think everyone can agree on which unit is more interesting between those two. I think I was a bit vague on the language when I talked about zoning. I actually specifically mean WoL improves in ways you can zone without needing your entire army somewhere. For example, creep and planetary fortresses are semi-permanent fixtures that are hard to get rid of, but allows the player to take control of a place without needing his or her army to be there. That's an aspect I think is more unique to SC2. I don't really count lurkers and siege lines as zoning in the same way because (aside from TvT) these are main army composition units that take up supply. Most of the time when you're engaging these units (and even when you're engaging minefields) you're basically clashing armies. If the enemy has his army somewhere and you don't want to engage it, it's more about positioning than zoning. When you compare a planetary fortress to a couple of lurkers or six cannons defending an expo, the planetary is capable of holding off far more (30 supply armies by itself) than lurkers or six cannons (even with a high templar for support). It takes an army of overwhelming force to destroy a planetary surrounded by SCVs. That's the type of zoning I mean. Similarly, when Terran armies move onto creep most of the time it's a dedicated decision to trade that army efficiently against the Zerg's. There's no running away once you're on creep, it's either you win or you lose that army. Protoss forcefields are slightly different, but they also allow a very small investment in resources to hold off entire armies from entering an area. Dark swarm allows you to zone an area, but only if you have other units in the area to pose a threat. Another difference between some of the WoL zoning and the Brood War zoning, such as scarabs, mines, and dark swarm, is that most of the time WoL zoning isn't immediate, but takes time to set up. You have to morph a planetary, you have to spread creep. If the enemy is right on top of a spot, you're not going to have a ton of overlords surrounding the enemy army dropping creep, and you probably won't get your planetary up in time to matter. In Brood War you can immediately plop down a dark swarm or drop mines in the middle of a battle as a direct combat ability. I also differentiate zoning from map control when one player has a number of fast moving units on the map and can threaten a counter in such a way that deters another player from moving out with his stronger force. The closest thing to WoL type zoning is probably spider mines. There was recently a good flash vs stats replay on fighting spirit (the 1st one, not the 2nd one). I suggest you watch it right now. You may be right about WoL taking more time to set up, but in my personal opinion, it takes no skill to decide whether a CC will turn into a PF, and even creep spread is more of a APM sink than anything (you don't actually plan where creep spread goes). Dark Swarm required you to consume lings, and you had to have good placement of dark swarm. Same with mines. Actually I'm not even sure your definition of zoning is good. Why would you want it so that you don't have to pay attention to something? Atm, even the pros are saying that we need a harder game. And actually I'm in favor of a more dynamic game where things are always moving, and the army isn't everywhere at once. And xxpack09 is completely right. You need to "spend APM" (micro) to avoid a head on confrontation into a wall of lurker spines.
I think you're missing the point by lumping APM and zoning all together. Brood War and SC2 both have their own APM dumps in different places. APM isn't the issue here, it's not like anyone has maxed out the number of places to spend APM in SC2. The main point is that it's neat from a design perspective that SC2 is building upon Brood War's territory control by introducing tools that are specifically tailored to zoning.
Dark swarm and spider mines can be used to control territory, but that's more of a secondary function. Primarily they are combat abilities. In contrast, PF's and creep are a passive resource for creating zones in which the opponent is at a significant disadvantage. Sure it takes no skill to turn a CC into a PF, but it does take skill to distract an enemy long enough for your PF to go up. This is especially true given that PF's are usually placed at thirds or fourths, which are places vulnerable for attack. Furthermore, at the very least a player still needs to have enough map awareness to surround their PF with SCV's before it gets sniped.
Creep spreading is also more dynamic than you think. In higher level matches there is a constant battle between creep spreading and creep denial, so creep has to be repeatedly spread over the same areas.
|
On October 26 2011 08:19 Newbistic wrote:
Dark swarm and spider mines can be used to control territory, but that's more of a secondary function. Primarily they are combat abilities.
This is just wrong. Swarm is used as frequently to make expansions unapproachable as it is for combat; see Flash vs. Calm on Fighting Spirit. Mines are dropped out of battle to strengthen tank lines and cut off escape routes far, far more frequently than they are dropped in combat, where they tend to be practically useless anyway since in a typical lategame TvP battle they would die before burrowing, unburrowing, and exploding.
In contrast, PF's and creep are a passive resource for creating zones in which the opponent is at a significant disadvantage.
BW had these zones too. They were called "low ground."
Sure it takes no skill to turn a CC into a PF, but it does take skill to distract an enemy long enough for your PF to go up. This is especially true given that PF's are usually placed at thirds or fourths, which are places vulnerable for attack. Furthermore, at the very least a player still needs to have enough map awareness to surround their PF with SCV's before it gets sniped.
Uh, okay. It takes skill to put up and defend expansions in BW too. This point has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific role of the Planetary Fortress.
Creep spreading is also more dynamic than you think. In higher level matches there is a constant battle between creep spreading and creep denial, so creep has to be repeatedly spread over the same areas.
Kind of like the constant battle in high-level lategame TvZ between swarm spreading and swarm denial with Irradiate... edit: You can watch Flash vs. Action on Roadrunner for an example of this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
