|
I've been playing a lot of SC2 the last few weeks, and I just don't find myself having any fun.
Every engagement is so incredibly predetermined. I don't find myself struggling to micro my way out of a bad engagement, or using some miraculous control to hold off an entire army with a handful of units at an expansion. I just don't feel like my control has a significant effect on how my games go at all.
You might be thinking, "oh, there's so much units that require really good control and you should use them more. Use more phoenix, mutalisks, infestors, blink stalkers, etc." However, do those units actually require really good control? I don't think they do. I don't feel like there is such a thing as really good control with any unit in SC2.
It appears to me that every unit in SC2 has one of two levels of effectiveness. Either you amove and forget the unit, and let the AI do the work. Usually this is quite suboptimal, but it makes sense for some units like zealots, zerglings, colossi, battlecruisers, etc. Then there's the attentive state, whereby you're using the unit to it's full potential. For many units, that's just kiting and spreading as appropriate. Roach, M&M, hellions, stalkers. For others, it's harassing when you can win and pulling back when you can't - reapers, banshees, mutas, phoenix, dts... As for casters, it's all about getting spells off. It's so stupid easy to blanket an army with storm/EMP/Fungal, or to lay down good forcefields. It's pretty much a hit or miss thing.
So all this being said, I just don't find like there's anything to hone with how I use my units. When I was playing Broodwar, I spent most of my time learning how to properly lay minefields, spread marines and focus lurkers, micro stacks of wraith, kite speedlings with vultures, siege dozens of tanks quickly... etc. There was soooooooooooooo much to master in terms of control. SC2 - I'm not seeing what there is to practice.
Hell, I even watch some pro streams/tournies and I see them use units the same way I use mine. They just have better fleshed-out builds and transitions in the macro game.
I can't be the only one this frustrated...
There's that feeling, when you lose in BW, that you could've won if you just controlled everything better. There's always a million things you can go back and look at and say, "wow that was terrible I can work on this." I just don't get that feeling in SC2, and it's so unbelievably frustrating, when you lose simply because of some build order coinflip, surprise army comp that you didn't scout, or some cheese that you didn't see coming. Even worse than that is when you lose straight up, and it turns out you just made the wrong units at the wrong time, or didn't expand fast enough - something that's a strategic mistake that you can't dig yourself out of by just playing "better."
I hope that HotS drastically changes the way the game plays, but the units I've seen don't make me very hopeful. I just want to have units that are so entertaining to play with that I'd want to sit down and practice controlling them for hours on end (good ol' muta/vulture micro maps).
I probably just need to take a break and get some beers...
P.S. I think I have time to finally write my final 2 articles for 'The Philosophy of Design." After playing a fair number of games, I'm not so sure I want to do the same articles I had previously planned. We'll see...
  
|
look at TvZs with muta sniping, splitting vs baneling siege tank positions getting proper surround getting good fungals, dancing broodlords and vikings hitting marines with banelings muta harass
look at PvZ with blink stalker micro forcefields burrow muta harass dodging storms dodging vortex
look at PvT with getting good EMPs getting good storms, good forcefields splitting kiting and sniping
there are tons of micro in battles at the pro level fights do come down to micro alot there are few fights where its "well palyer A doesnt have to micro this army much at all" and the times it does the player actually won 15 minutes ago
theres fighting in a good position getting a concave having your army in a good position and your enemy in a bad one
theres hellion play and banshee harass theres phoenix VS mutas and baneling wars in ZvZ
|
You use a weird example for showcasing reduced need for micro (Bio, Stalkers, Roaches, Hellions) as Bio in Sc2 requires a lot more micro then it did in BW due to the addition of things such as fungal, banelings and forcefields, stalkers have a much higher micro potential then Dragoons did due to blink and their high movespeed, roaches requires the same (if not more) micro then hydras did in BW due to burrow move and the addition of forcefields. Hellions require far more positioning then vultures did simply because of how their attack works.
We commonly see players completely turn what should have been a build order loss (such as unscouted proxy 2 gate vs 1 racks fast exand) into a completely one sided win simply by out playing their opponents.
I really think this is just nostalgia talking or you need to explain yourself better. -shrug-
|
In a nutshell:
The difference in value from median unit control vs optimal unit control is higher in BW than in SC2.
This means the overlapping window of value exchange in an engagement (whose bounds are set by each player's control) is smaller in SC2.
It's not fun knowing before a fight happens that you can't win the fight.
SC2 is about maintaining your windows and leveraging small value wins or recouping a value deficiency through deception or your opponent's mistakes. In particular, the latter happens outside the purview of an engagement. For example you cause your opponent to misjudge the strength of your army and hesitate, thereby delaying a bad engagement that will be improved for you by waiting.
In this way, BW is more "friendly" in a strange, high-requirements way. It's a point of preference whether emphasis on unit control in a strategy game is desirable or not.
Personally, I like choosing what chess piece to move where more than pressing a button combo to make my pawn walk forward once I do decide.
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: You can bring up the point that high control requirements turns attention into a resource, and adds a dimension to the chess game. This is on the sports side of things. That's a fair point. Not my preference though, as aforementioned.
But I guess I'd agree then, "units" are boring in SC2.
|
On March 07 2012 14:18 EatThePath wrote:In a nutshell: The difference in value from median unit control vs optimal unit control is higher in BW than in SC2. This means the overlapping window of value exchange in an engagement (whose bounds are set by each player's control) is smaller in SC2. It's not fun knowing before a fight happens that you can't win the fight. SC2 is about maintaining your windows and leveraging small value wins or recouping a value deficiency through deception or your opponent's mistakes. In particular, the latter happens outside the purview of an engagement. For example you cause your opponent to misjudge the strength of your army and hesitate, thereby delaying a bad engagement that will be improved for you by waiting. In this way, BW is more "friendly" in a strange, high-requirements way. It's a point of preference whether emphasis on unit control in a strategy game is desirable or not. Personally, I like choosing what chess piece to move where more than pressing a button combo to make my pawn walk forward once I do decide. + Show Spoiler +
i cant think of a single time ive ever seen a fight where one side didnt already obtain a massive lead that i think "well its impossible for the opponent to hold this"
majority of fights come down to position and control
|
On March 07 2012 14:22 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 14:18 EatThePath wrote:In a nutshell: The difference in value from median unit control vs optimal unit control is higher in BW than in SC2. This means the overlapping window of value exchange in an engagement (whose bounds are set by each player's control) is smaller in SC2. It's not fun knowing before a fight happens that you can't win the fight. SC2 is about maintaining your windows and leveraging small value wins or recouping a value deficiency through deception or your opponent's mistakes. In particular, the latter happens outside the purview of an engagement. For example you cause your opponent to misjudge the strength of your army and hesitate, thereby delaying a bad engagement that will be improved for you by waiting. In this way, BW is more "friendly" in a strange, high-requirements way. It's a point of preference whether emphasis on unit control in a strategy game is desirable or not. Personally, I like choosing what chess piece to move where more than pressing a button combo to make my pawn walk forward once I do decide. + Show Spoiler + i cant think of a single time ive ever seen a fight where one side didnt already obtain a massive lead that i think "well its impossible for the opponent to hold this" majority of fights come down to position and control
I didn't say otherwise. What I said is that the windows of the possible outcomes are much smaller in SC2 than BW given optimal vs basic control (let's exclude mistakes). That's a fuzzy statement because we can't define optimal, but I think you take my point.
|
On March 07 2012 14:10 TheButtonmen wrote:
You use a weird example for showcasing reduced need for micro (Bio, Stalkers, Roaches, Hellions) as Bio in Sc2 requires a lot more micro then it did in BW due to the addition of things such as fungal, banelings and forcefields, stalkers have a much higher micro potential then Dragoons did due to blink and their high movespeed, roaches requires the same (if not more) micro then hydras did in BW due to burrow move and the addition of forcefields. Hellions require far more positioning then vultures did simply because of how their attack works.
We commonly see players completely turn what should have been a build order loss (such as unscouted proxy 2 gate vs 1 racks fast exand) into a completely one sided win simply by out playing their opponents.
I really think this is just nostalgia talking or you need to explain yourself better. -shrug-
go play bio in bw TvZ lol...similar amount of spreading needed and you don't get a super hotkey for the army also fungal/forcefield REMOVE micro from the bio controlling player by making the units incapable of motion
stalker micro and dragoon micro is similar in difficulty (though goons were a LOT more annoying) due to the BW AI though you can argue that blink makes stalkers harder to control you can also argue that dragoon ai was the worst thing in existence (except maybe goliath ai)
burrow move isn't something that is efficiently used in battle excluding to avoid force fields or sneak past something due to no detection
hellions may require more positioning but vultures required a lot more actions to command properly with laying mines (which you had to make sure that they actually went down each time you went to put them down) and infinitely more apm control with patrol micro (which is some of the most beautiful micro that can be seen aside from bw muta micro)
anyways my personal take is that i do agree with the OP that sc2 units feel a lot more boring though it is not because of their upper potential limit it's because of the entry limit the sheer difference between 0 micro (a-move) and simple micro (patrol move) and how much more effective units become from this...terran seems the only race in sc2 which has units that are fun in this respect which is a shame
this "problem" is caused by a few things which have probably been pointed out numerous times
1)the difference in AI
2)the spells which remove individual unit control (ff/fungal/conc shell)
3)far to many A-move units (such as Colossus/carrier/thor/BL)
4)many units have their abilities increased through spells rather than mouse micro kinda like blink stalkers rather than patrol vultures
however, sc2 and bw are different games as dustin browder has even stated they are not attempting to make a bw remake of any kind (though deep down i do miss reavers and lurkers so much)
sc2 also seems like a lot less of a positional game than bw (excluding TvT in sc2) and feels a lot more ball vs ball which isn't necessarily a bad thing it is however a lot more action at the same time leading to much shorter battles with much more devastating consequences (particularly in PvT/TvP where the armies are made to overkill each other so one major battle can be gg)
|
On March 07 2012 14:18 EatThePath wrote:
SC2 is about maintaining your windows and leveraging small value wins or recouping a value deficiency through deception or your opponent's mistakes. In particular, the latter happens outside the purview of an engagement. For example you cause your opponent to misjudge the strength of your army and hesitate, thereby delaying a bad engagement that will be improved for you by waiting.
In this way, BW is more "friendly" in a strange, high-requirements way. It's a point of preference whether emphasis on unit control in a strategy game is desirable or not.
Personally, I like choosing what chess piece to move where more than pressing a button combo to make my pawn walk forward once I do decide.
I would have to humbly disagree because sc2 really doesn't have any more unit choice/strategy than bw. It's a romantic idea to think that sc2 redistributes aspects of bw, but for the most part they are either on par or dumbed down. You have just as many "chess pieces to move" in sc2 as you do in bw. So what's left is just diminished control potential.
|
fungal and forcefield dont remove micro i dont get why people say thatfungal and forcefield increase micro without spells like that the game would so much more Amoving but now you have to be much more concerned about positioning awareness and trying to bait spells from the opponent
if anything removes micro its the ghost since both of his spells are instant cast with all its damage up front that removes energy or straight kills the enemy
|
So BW > SC2 ? You know, I've never heard that argument before!
I think you're right that micro doesn't affect a game of SC2 as severely as micro does in BW. (except in some situations where micro has a greater effect i.e. banes/FFS.)
They're different games though...there's bound to be some differences.
|
Marine splitting, baneling splitting, moving a few units in the front of your army to take tank fire, making concaves with your army before engagements, microing units in and out of drop ships when doing drops, focus firing, spreading creep constantly, microing a blink stalker army so that none of them die, kiting marines with stalkers when both of you are doing back and forth mindgames, killing 100000 zerglings with hellions, making hellions useless with good positioning TvT, dodging storm and fungal.
You can always make engagements go better for you with good micro. If he has 3x the army supply of you in infestor broodlord, there isnt anything you can do about it because its that much bigger than yours, but on equal terms theres lots of micro to be done.
|
The new starcraft master micro game is very relevant to this blog. It was shit easy, equivalent to a being a starcraft peasant in BW.
I hope HOTS will make the game harder but nah, only thing that's going to get harder is navigating through the extra rocks dustin browder included.
|
Fungal and forcefields do remove micro. If your marines get fungaled, you pretty much forget about them cause they're dead. Compare this to dark swarm, where your forced to remove your forces.or lose them. Similarly with forcefields, if a bunch of units get stuck, they're stuck and there's nothing the other player can do to prevent it. There's no competition or a fighting chance given to the other player, and this makes it boring.
|
remember Naniwas insane forcefilds VS DRG i think at winter arena?
micro is still a major and game changing thing its jsut noones good enough to use it to its fullest
On March 07 2012 14:47 dartoo wrote:
Fungal and forcefields do remove micro. If your marines get fungaled, you pretty much forget about them cause they're dead. Compare this to dark swarm, where your forced to remove your forces.or lose them. Similarly with forcefields, if a bunch of units get stuck, they're stuck and there's nothing the other player can do to prevent it. There's no competition or a fighting chance given to the other player, and this makes it boring.
sure getting hit by fungal removes some micro from a small amount of units, but it causes so much micro to be done with proper splits and positioning and the units can still be microd you can have them FF
|
On March 07 2012 14:42 Kamais Ookin wrote:
The new starcraft master micro game is very relevant to this blog. It was shit easy, equivalent to a being a starcraft peasant in BW.
I hope HOTS will make the game harder but nah, only thing that's going to get harder is navigating through the extra rocks dustin browder included.
You do realize it is an isolated situation of micro where you're not consistently trying to scout, deny, position, and macro as well?
I believe that BW units were more akin to locked-unlocked type units who either sink or swim in the face of good micro behind a good macro front. When "locked" by poor micro and attention, they will fall very very quickly. When unlocked, you can really work the positioning, initiate/retreat from fights, and make the units not do stupid stuff that makes them worthless. I don't play much BW, but the sheer APM to make things go "smooth" across the map and macro is much greater, so basic unit control is a much higher skill to have in BW compared to SC2.
In SC2, all units, save the infestor and High Templar can do something without micro. Yes some benefit more than others (See: Collosus vs Marine in terms of micro v non micro in most situations) but 100 banelings running straight into a siege line and connecting with the siege tanks/thors of a meching terran is a poor investment, despite being able to clean up half of the siege line. Those same 100 banelings can be much more useful in killing bases, SCVs, production, or lighter HP units. This is a decision making difference, yes, but it serves to say that the banelings DID something and microing them to exactly kill a 4/5/6 at the same time is much more lethal (all of a sudden, no mining! rather than roll the ball from one to the other). The marine is a good example of good-but-amazing-with micro. In fact it is the best. It should be countered by tanks, banelings, high templar, infestors, collosus, lings, zealots, hellions, and many other SC2 units (mostly AoE). Splitting and spreading makes most AoE so much more cost inefficient that marines win the game on their own. MKP is the shining star of that. Any gold leaguer can max on just marines, mauraders, and medivacs but will consistently lose to zergs and protoss because they (presumably) don't have the micro to keep up with tons of banelings, storms, and collosus packs doing huge damage to the army.
In short, BW units require decent micro to even be D. SC2 micro is what can turn a dia to masters or low masters to high masters. Basic unit control can win you a lot in Plat and below, such as relatively weak stutter stepping, sieging before an engagement in any kind of spread, etc.
|
I don't think people here understand the point. SC2 fights aren't fights, they're engagements. They're also too fast, and if you mess up the way you engage, you can't really come back from that.
|
On March 07 2012 14:40 Forikorder wrote:
fungal and forcefield dont remove micro i dont get why people say thatfungal and forcefield increase micro without spells like that the game would so much more Amoving but now you have to be much more concerned about positioning awareness and trying to bait spells from the opponent
if anything removes micro its the ghost since both of his spells are instant cast with all its damage up front that removes energy or straight kills the enemy
and fungal isn't instant? storms? nothing has a delay except for nukes...storms don't do full dmg instant but u better move ur ass out of it instantly...
|
On March 07 2012 15:08 TG Manny wrote:
In short, BW units require decent micro to even be D. SC2 micro is what can turn a dia to masters or low masters to high masters. Basic unit control can win you a lot in Plat and below, such as relatively weak stutter stepping, sieging before an engagement in any kind of spread, etc.
Just like you can macro and A-move in Plat and below in SC2 you can do the same in BW, a metric shit ton Zealots / Dragoons being A-Moved will get you pretty far and when it doesn't you can just add in HT from the odd storm and archons.
Don't judge games by how they are played by scrubs.
|
On March 07 2012 15:17 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 14:40 Forikorder wrote:
fungal and forcefield dont remove micro i dont get why people say thatfungal and forcefield increase micro without spells like that the game would so much more Amoving but now you have to be much more concerned about positioning awareness and trying to bait spells from the opponent
if anything removes micro its the ghost since both of his spells are instant cast with all its damage up front that removes energy or straight kills the enemy and fungal isn't instant? storms? nothing has a delay except for nukes...storms don't do full dmg instant but u better move ur ass out of it instantly...
so fungal isnt instant i believe it takes 4 seconds to finish
the point is people wine that SC2 is too Amovey then wine that spells that cause alot of micro like fungal and FF exist
when you look at alot of PvZs pretty much all micro until late game is all about baiting forcefields forcing forcefields and dodging forcefields (and the opposite for toss trying to preserve forcefields and getting good forcefields)
|
On March 07 2012 14:36 ejac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 14:18 EatThePath wrote:
SC2 is about maintaining your windows and leveraging small value wins or recouping a value deficiency through deception or your opponent's mistakes. In particular, the latter happens outside the purview of an engagement. For example you cause your opponent to misjudge the strength of your army and hesitate, thereby delaying a bad engagement that will be improved for you by waiting.
In this way, BW is more "friendly" in a strange, high-requirements way. It's a point of preference whether emphasis on unit control in a strategy game is desirable or not.
Personally, I like choosing what chess piece to move where more than pressing a button combo to make my pawn walk forward once I do decide.
I would have to humbly disagree because sc2 really doesn't have any more unit choice/strategy than bw. It's a romantic idea to think that sc2 redistributes aspects of bw, but for the most part they are either on par or dumbed down. You have just as many "chess pieces to move" in sc2 as you do in bw. So what's left is just diminished control potential.
I didn't say anything comparing the two as chess games. I would probably agree with your assessment (italic) but I haven't given it a lot of thought. I am merely saying I like chess better than streetfighter, to put it extremely. Both are fun though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
