On April 23 2012 23:56 kakaman wrote: SC2 is very big on complementary units. It's something I personally find more advanced than BW because "counters" are so key in the game. So there is a certain timing in the game where just mass blink stalkers is viable (or most of PvP), but they are quickly able to be countered because they are glass cannons. You would need to pair it with immortals or zealots, and then ultimately colossus.
I find that weird because I see stalkers with the capability of blink and mobility makes it a very good unit to mass up and as long you can micro with blink you can get a good flank from each corner . Than again I am not sure about sc2 matchup although I would like to see a pure stalkers flank vs MnM .
edit : blink....
Pure Blink Stalkers are pretty good in PvZ since Roach DPS is kinda bad against them and Lings aren't very efficient against the clumping and Blink micro of the Stalkers. I've seen many Zergs lose to Blink Stalker pushes, which pretty much look like FFE into turtling into massing Warpgates and getting Blink and ground attack upgrades into hitting a timing attack against Zerg with tons of Blink Stalkers.
However, they're actually very sub-optimal in PvT when unsupported because Marauders hard counter Stalkers so much. You can try to Blink all you want against Marauders, but stimmed Marauders deal out so much DPS that Blinking doesn't matter, and Medivacs help the Marauders tank against the lesser Stalker DPS even more. Plus, any retreating Stalkers caught by Concussive Shells are pretty much guaranteed to die, especially if Blink is on cooldown.
PvP Blink Stalker wars are really cool, however. Much better than Colossus vs Colossus deathballs slamming at each other.
I want my dragoons back
Well, I'm pretty sure Dragoons would suck against Marauders as well, even if it's slightly beefier with a slightly better attack. Stimmed Mauraders with Medivac support are just so good against Stalkers and Roaches, but mixing in Zealots and Lings to tank damage do give their respective armies a fighting chance until higher-tech units are mixed in. Plus, I think Blink is almost a necessity with Terrans being able to do drops so easily and Zerg being able to move so fast on Creep.
I agree only because mmm is so much better than in BW. however, you add in sentries + goons w/range, then it's too imba. I think blizzard made a good choice with using the immortal to equalize the bio army.
On April 24 2012 00:15 kakaman wrote: Pure blink stalkers doesn't work against Z either bc all they need are a few speed lings, then you are trapped after the first blink. Again, composition is more important than actual mechanics. Dragoons wouldn't fair too well in SC2, most maps have really narrow pathways, so the dumb AI would screw you over pretty quickly.
I was more talking about Protoss having a strong mid-game gateway unit that can shoot up. If you compare dragoon stats to stalker stats (not a perfect comparison but work with me) it's pretty clear the dragoon was a lot stronger. We're talking 100/80/1 armor versus 80/80/1 armor and half the attack value of the dragoon. If you move a group out on their own, they die, especially once terran has concussive shell on the Marauder. As I said, I think the game is well balanced, but the design decisions about the stalker is the cause of the deathball.
Clearly the stalker was made a bit weaker to make room for the immortal, but that leaves a big hole in Protoss's aa ability in the early and mid game. Which they've now attempted to band-aid with the pheonix range fix. I'm hoping beyond logic that the whole issue will be reviewed and fixed in HotS, but that remains to be seen. Anyway were a bit off topic, but hopefully Sawa that gives you some idea of the whole issue with the "deathball army".
I think people are under estimating how strong the dragoon is if i remember right i think a dragoon does double the damage a stalker does and is beffier at the same time and costs exactly the same. I think a stalker fires slightly faster but if you put the dragoon where the stalker is know it would last longer in battles and would be doing more damge at the same time.
Ps these are guestimates as i dont have a list of actual dps but the dragoon does have more health and im almost certian that the dps of a dragoon is higher.
On April 24 2012 00:15 kakaman wrote: Pure blink stalkers doesn't work against Z either bc all they need are a few speed lings, then you are trapped after the first blink. Again, composition is more important than actual mechanics. Dragoons wouldn't fair too well in SC2, most maps have really narrow pathways, so the dumb AI would screw you over pretty quickly.
I was more talking about Protoss having a strong mid-game gateway unit that can shoot up. If you compare dragoon stats to stalker stats (not a perfect comparison but work with me) it's pretty clear the dragoon was a lot stronger. We're talking 100/80/1 armor versus 80/80/1 armor and half the attack value of the dragoon. If you move a group out on their own, they die, especially once terran has concussive shell on the Marauder. As I said, I think the game is well balanced, but the design decisions about the stalker is the cause of the deathball.
Clearly the stalker was made a bit weaker to make room for the immortal, but that leaves a big hole in Protoss's aa ability in the early and mid game. Which they've now attempted to band-aid with the pheonix range fix. I'm hoping beyond logic that the whole issue will be reviewed and fixed in HotS, but that remains to be seen. Anyway were a bit off topic, but hopefully Sawa that gives you some idea of the whole issue with the "deathball army".
Well, technically Dragoon attack is 20 explosive while Stalker attack is 10 with bonus +4 against armored, which I guess would translate to 14 explosive damage in BW terms. It's not that big of a difference, and I think Stalkers needed to be slightly weaker than Dragoons to make sure they don't get too powerful with Blink.
Plus, Dragoons without Blink would get completely mauled by Concussive Shell and would easily get chased down by stim, so any disadvantageous engagement with them would be fatal. At least Blink Stalkers are good at pulling away from such disadvantageous engagements.
On April 24 2012 00:15 kakaman wrote: Pure blink stalkers doesn't work against Z either bc all they need are a few speed lings, then you are trapped after the first blink. Again, composition is more important than actual mechanics. Dragoons wouldn't fair too well in SC2, most maps have really narrow pathways, so the dumb AI would screw you over pretty quickly.
I was more talking about Protoss having a strong mid-game gateway unit that can shoot up. If you compare dragoon stats to stalker stats (not a perfect comparison but work with me) it's pretty clear the dragoon was a lot stronger. We're talking 100/80/1 armor versus 80/80/1 armor and half the attack value of the dragoon. If you move a group out on their own, they die, especially once terran has concussive shell on the Marauder. As I said, I think the game is well balanced, but the design decisions about the stalker is the cause of the deathball.
Clearly the stalker was made a bit weaker to make room for the immortal, but that leaves a big hole in Protoss's aa ability in the early and mid game. Which they've now attempted to band-aid with the pheonix range fix. I'm hoping beyond logic that the whole issue will be reviewed and fixed in HotS, but that remains to be seen. Anyway were a bit off topic, but hopefully Sawa that gives you some idea of the whole issue with the "deathball army".
Well, technically Dragoon attack is 20 explosive while Stalker attack is 10 with bonus +4 against armored, which I guess would translate to 14 explosive damage in BW terms. It's not that big of a difference, and I think Stalkers needed to be slightly weaker than Dragoons to make sure they don't get too powerful with Blink.
oh wow i just looked up dragoons in liqupedia and they only have 20 more hp than a stalker. Maybe they are not that much diffrent after all.
On April 24 2012 00:15 kakaman wrote: Pure blink stalkers doesn't work against Z either bc all they need are a few speed lings, then you are trapped after the first blink. Again, composition is more important than actual mechanics. Dragoons wouldn't fair too well in SC2, most maps have really narrow pathways, so the dumb AI would screw you over pretty quickly.
I was more talking about Protoss having a strong mid-game gateway unit that can shoot up. If you compare dragoon stats to stalker stats (not a perfect comparison but work with me) it's pretty clear the dragoon was a lot stronger. We're talking 100/80/1 armor versus 80/80/1 armor and half the attack value of the dragoon. If you move a group out on their own, they die, especially once terran has concussive shell on the Marauder. As I said, I think the game is well balanced, but the design decisions about the stalker is the cause of the deathball.
Clearly the stalker was made a bit weaker to make room for the immortal, but that leaves a big hole in Protoss's aa ability in the early and mid game. Which they've now attempted to band-aid with the pheonix range fix. I'm hoping beyond logic that the whole issue will be reviewed and fixed in HotS, but that remains to be seen. Anyway were a bit off topic, but hopefully Sawa that gives you some idea of the whole issue with the "deathball army".
Well, technically Dragoon attack is 20 explosive while Stalker attack is 10 with bonus +4 against armored, which I guess would translate to 14 explosive damage in BW terms. It's not that big of a difference, and I think Stalkers needed to be slightly weaker than Dragoons to make sure they don't get too powerful with Blink.
You're probably right. Well balanced, but not well designed.
On April 24 2012 00:15 kakaman wrote: Pure blink stalkers doesn't work against Z either bc all they need are a few speed lings, then you are trapped after the first blink. Again, composition is more important than actual mechanics. Dragoons wouldn't fair too well in SC2, most maps have really narrow pathways, so the dumb AI would screw you over pretty quickly.
I was more talking about Protoss having a strong mid-game gateway unit that can shoot up. If you compare dragoon stats to stalker stats (not a perfect comparison but work with me) it's pretty clear the dragoon was a lot stronger. We're talking 100/80/1 armor versus 80/80/1 armor and half the attack value of the dragoon. If you move a group out on their own, they die, especially once terran has concussive shell on the Marauder. As I said, I think the game is well balanced, but the design decisions about the stalker is the cause of the deathball.
Clearly the stalker was made a bit weaker to make room for the immortal, but that leaves a big hole in Protoss's aa ability in the early and mid game. Which they've now attempted to band-aid with the pheonix range fix. I'm hoping beyond logic that the whole issue will be reviewed and fixed in HotS, but that remains to be seen. Anyway were a bit off topic, but hopefully Sawa that gives you some idea of the whole issue with the "deathball army".
To be fair, P doesn't really need the AA. Maybe against muta, but that has been slowly phased out, and not due to the new phoenix upgrade. A few well placed cannons + warp in usually does the trick.
Just watch a few games. I periodically (every few months) watch a few games to decide if it is any good. If you understand Brood War on any genuine strategic level, you will be able to follow SC2 because SC2 is just that but way, way simpler.
I know there are a lot of BW players who only understand the mechanics and built in reactions side of the game, which is a shame because they miss out on BW's true strength of being able to combine mechanics with real strategy, the kind of stuff talked about in the Sun Tzu's Art of War and beyond.
On April 23 2012 23:52 Sawamura wrote: So I take it that stalkers are like dragoons in broodwar . Do protoss player in sc2 mass stalkers and than use bling to out micro huge numbers of units ? I think mass dragoons in bw was viable as stork did use it frequently against terran in broodwar .
Well thats the beauty of BW you can extract so much utility out of useless units like goons and mutas. Just gotta micro.
On April 24 2012 00:40 Chef wrote: Just watch a few games. I periodically (every few months) watch a few games to decide if it is any good. If you understand Brood War on any genuine strategic level, you will be able to follow SC2 because SC2 is just that but way, way simpler.
I know there are a lot of BW players who only understand the mechanics and built in reactions side of the game, which is a shame because they miss out on BW's true strength of being able to combine mechanics with real strategy, the kind of stuff talked about in the Sun Tzu's Art of War and beyond.
On April 23 2012 23:33 TheToast wrote: Honestly, I think one could write volumes on what separates BW from SC2 as a spectator sport. (I'm sure you could write 20 pages yourself )
As far as strategy is concerned, there are a few key differences to watch out for:
Zerg The Zerg play fairly similar to BW actually. The biggest differences in game play come from the Queen, which deals with both larva inject and creep spread and also provides the only early game air defense zerg has, so is key in a ZvT when terran can rush to banshee, also useful in defending against Hellion (vulture) harass. Inject Larva is a timed spell that basically adds extra larva to a hatchery, replacing the use of that early third macro hatch; you can imagine the importantce of this. Queen also lays creep tumors, which are sort of like creep colonies that can spawn more of themselves. Creep spread is actually pretty important as not only does it provide vision like in BW, but also gives a speed bonus to ground forces. Important because the hydralisk is stupid slow and and there's no speed upgrade.
In a TvZ baneling micro can be pretty damn important too, as Marine/Marauder/Medivac can actually be pretty deadly in the mid game.
SC2 lings aren't worth shit compared to BW lings
you forgot that part
Actually I'm pretty sure they have the exact same stats. Just aren't very useful in the early game against Terran due to hellion and marauder. I'm no expert on ZvP (seriously, my PvZ has always been laughably bad) but I would say zerglings have some use for the early game. Either way, I think the queen is probably the most major differences between the two games as far as the early and mid games are concerned. Banelings are important, but essentially fill the same role as the lurker.
I don't think so. In BW for example if 6 lings were in your mineral lines, it was much scarier then it is now. You couldn't hold it with 12 drones and not lose most if not all of them.
Marines are also much better vs lings in sc2 then bw, that is why they aren't useful early game is marine stutter micro, then hellions are out by the time speed has finished for them. zvp zealots are very good vs zerglings, especially if the zealots don't get surrounded and the lings dont' have speed yet.
On April 23 2012 23:33 FlyingToilet wrote: I think blizzards starting to lean gameplay torward the way brood war matchups used to be played, for instance pvt atm is completely volatile it isn't really skill based it is 2 base a moves, and terrans want mech atm, if you go mech in pvt you usually just get countered and rolled and that's all there really is to it. The sc2 community and blizzard is actually trying to give the gameplay the community want's and there's always that 1 game that lasts about an hour but it's extremely rare, usually all of the sc2 tournaments are analyzing your opponent and reacting to what he's doing, like an all-in to kill a greedy build is typically the usual thing you will see in sc2 proleagues.
There is a couple sc2 matches that were extremely fun to watch, i could link you a few
I watched the 1st match and I must say, what an absurd game. I haven't watched sc2 since like the first GSL and at least that was somewhat more interesting with silly cheese left and right. This was literally Game start 1. 0 harass, 0 micro 2. both players max supply 3. sit around for 10 minutes 4. finally MVP decides to somewhat harass 5. terrible (basically no) response, gg also had some great 1a attacks from Nestea with nonsense unit combos. Has no anti-air in a 30minute long game, makes 20 broodlords, a-move. Dies to like 10 vikings. I know MVP and Nestea aren't exactly the cream of the crop but I think they play worse in sc2 than BW. I'm scared to watch the other matches now.
EDIT: Actually I watched the other videos. The IPL top plays... + Show Spoiler +
5. fails to zealot wall 4. a-moves banelings? 3. He used stop-lurkers. 2. Mass infested terran was pretty cute 1. I'm not even sure what was supposed to be the "play" here.
This is why I can't support sc2. Out of every single top game or top plays I've ever seen, I've never seen anything that I can't do with zero to minimal effort. Sure I can't do everything simultaneously but if I wanted to watch godlike multitask, I would watch BW.
Xenocide_Knight: Arguments like that bother me. "Nothing I can't do with zero to minimal effort" is pure bullshit. Can you split a large amount of marines against speed-banelings (I believe you will find that this is hard to do), or can you dodge psi storms like MKP in his GSTL game vs. PartinG? Can you pick up colossi to save them and drop them off to make another shot, before picking them up again - in the middle of a big fight? Those are feats of (relatively) high-level micro, and if you claim you can repeat any of those, I'd like you to show that. In fact, you could probably make a lot of money in SCII if you could. And I still don't get why people expect SC2 progamers to be as good at SC2 as BW pros are at BW. Strategies have had a decade to develop, and the correct way of doing most things has been figured out. BW has had years and years of fine-tuning, while SC2 has not. BW might be the more complex game, and it might, in the end, be the "better" game - but oversimplifying SC2 and claiming that anything progamers can do in the game is easily doable on an off night when you've had a few beers is stupid.
On April 24 2012 06:56 Zealously wrote: Xenocide_Knight: Arguments like that bother me. "Nothing I can't do with zero to minimal effort" is pure bullshit. Can you split a large amount of marines against speed-banelings (I believe you will find that this is hard to do), or can you dodge psi storms like MKP in his GSTL game vs. PartinG? Can you pick up colossi to save them and drop them off to make another shot, before picking them up again - in the middle of a big fight? Those are feats of (relatively) high-level micro, and if you claim you can repeat any of those, I'd like you to show that. In fact, you could probably make a lot of money in SCII if you could. And I still don't get why people expect SC2 progamers to be as good at SC2 as BW pros are at BW. Strategies have had a decade to develop, and the correct way of doing most things has been figured out. BW has had years and years of fine-tuning, while SC2 has not. BW might be the more complex game, and it might, in the end, be the "better" game - but oversimplifying SC2 and claiming that anything progamers can do in the game is easily doable on an off night when you've had a few beers is stupid.
Have you ever even witnessed reaver micro?
Guarantee you that was 100x harder than colossus shuttle micro (some hyperbole, but you get it)
On April 24 2012 06:56 Zealously wrote: Xenocide_Knight: Arguments like that bother me. "Nothing I can't do with zero to minimal effort" is pure bullshit. Can you split a large amount of marines against speed-banelings (I believe you will find that this is hard to do), or can you dodge psi storms like MKP in his GSTL game vs. PartinG? Can you pick up colossi to save them and drop them off to make another shot, before picking them up again - in the middle of a big fight? Those are feats of (relatively) high-level micro, and if you claim you can repeat any of those, I'd like you to show that. In fact, you could probably make a lot of money in SCII if you could. And I still don't get why people expect SC2 progamers to be as good at SC2 as BW pros are at BW. Strategies have had a decade to develop, and the correct way of doing most things has been figured out. BW has had years and years of fine-tuning, while SC2 has not. BW might be the more complex game, and it might, in the end, be the "better" game - but oversimplifying SC2 and claiming that anything progamers can do in the game is easily doable on an off night when you've had a few beers is stupid.
Guarantee you that was 100x harder than colossus shuttle micro (some hyperbole, but you get it)
For once I am going to have to side with the BW elitists. BW did have a much higher skill requirement in terms of micro mechanics. Doesn't mean it's necessarily a better game to spectate, just requires a different skill set. Then again WC3 had an even higher micro skill ceiling than BW, but then different games are different. *zing*
Jaedong vs. Flash will no doubt be the sickest SC2 games we will see. I personally feel ZvT is the closest to bw play style, for now at least. Tons of little skirmishes, drops, counter attacks, some good big engagements, very very fun match up in my opinion, and well played PvZ with the use of warp in everywhere and warp prisms and what not.
On April 24 2012 00:15 kakaman wrote: Pure blink stalkers doesn't work against Z either bc all they need are a few speed lings, then you are trapped after the first blink. Again, composition is more important than actual mechanics. Dragoons wouldn't fair too well in SC2, most maps have really narrow pathways, so the dumb AI would screw you over pretty quickly.
I was more talking about Protoss having a strong mid-game gateway unit that can shoot up. If you compare dragoon stats to stalker stats (not a perfect comparison but work with me) it's pretty clear the dragoon was a lot stronger. We're talking 100/80/1 armor versus 80/80/1 armor and half the attack value of the dragoon. If you move a group out on their own, they die, especially once terran has concussive shell on the Marauder. As I said, I think the game is well balanced, but the design decisions about the stalker is the cause of the deathball.
Clearly the stalker was made a bit weaker to make room for the immortal, but that leaves a big hole in Protoss's aa ability in the early and mid game. Which they've now attempted to band-aid with the pheonix range fix. I'm hoping beyond logic that the whole issue will be reviewed and fixed in HotS, but that remains to be seen. Anyway were a bit off topic, but hopefully Sawa that gives you some idea of the whole issue with the "deathball army".
stalker is more than good enough AA for just about anything.. blink stalkers are even effective against broodlords with infestor support to an extent. pheonix upgrade was worthless to begin with as the meta had already moved to get blink stalkers to stop muta harass with cannon / tempar support after mass muta was all the rage. I've seen the upgrade like two or three times total in pro games.
hmm okay so what to look for in games?
TvZ currently one of the more enjoyable matches to watch. Korean Ts love to open hellion expand since its fairly safe barring a roach bust (which you can always scout for and see coming) Zerg usually play the defensive early on but some Z like to throw in ling run bys. Baneling land mines are enjoyable to see happen occasionally. You will note alot of top T will scan in front of their army looking for land mines pretty regularly. Zerg tend to go one of two styles: 1) muta/ling/baneling which is the more traditional style back before infestor buffs but is starting to re-emerge because muta harass is so effective. the other strat tends to be some sort of mix of roaches/lings into infestors then into a late game broodlord switch. This is a more defensive strat But it is very effective mid-late game and is good at stopping early pushes from the T.
Some of the more amazing things to watch is marine splitting against banes.. its a treat to watch and one of the reasons i have some faith in sc2 having potential not all of the video is amazing but these types of splits are common in the high lvl of sc2 now.
TvP honestly i only find a few games of TvP enjoyable to watch b/c only high level play has been getting to the point where it isnt a boring deathball build some that come to mind is MKP vs Parting (watch GSTL finals.. amazing game, game 4 i think?) This mostly revolves around T massing up MnM with either ghost or viking support depending on what the P is going (though later T will need both when protoss has a real deathball of gateway/collosi/templar)
ZvP This match up is sort of wonky atm.. essentially its really hard to get a 3rd base up as a protoss vs a zerg because 12min max on roaches is something any top Z can do these days so usually its some sort of 2 base all-in by the protoss or at least some sort of heavy harass strat that will keep the zerg from building an overpowering force and walk over you.
micro generally can be pretty awesome if you are looking for it in sc2
On April 24 2012 06:56 Zealously wrote: Xenocide_Knight: Arguments like that bother me. "Nothing I can't do with zero to minimal effort" is pure bullshit. Can you split a large amount of marines against speed-banelings (I believe you will find that this is hard to do), or can you dodge psi storms like MKP in his GSTL game vs. PartinG? Can you pick up colossi to save them and drop them off to make another shot, before picking them up again - in the middle of a big fight? Those are feats of (relatively) high-level micro, and if you claim you can repeat any of those, I'd like you to show that. In fact, you could probably make a lot of money in SCII if you could. And I still don't get why people expect SC2 progamers to be as good at SC2 as BW pros are at BW. Strategies have had a decade to develop, and the correct way of doing most things has been figured out. BW has had years and years of fine-tuning, while SC2 has not. BW might be the more complex game, and it might, in the end, be the "better" game - but oversimplifying SC2 and claiming that anything progamers can do in the game is easily doable on an off night when you've had a few beers is stupid.
Guarantee you that was 100x harder than colossus shuttle micro (some hyperbole, but you get it)
100x harder is pushing it, there is some skill required to using micro on warp prisms (and medivacs / ovies for that matter) you basically keep the warp prism moving as well as microing the unit(s) you are dropping at the same time.. if anything they are likely around the same skill requirement unless you want to enlighten me.
On April 24 2012 06:56 Zealously wrote: Xenocide_Knight: Arguments like that bother me. "Nothing I can't do with zero to minimal effort" is pure bullshit. Can you split a large amount of marines against speed-banelings (I believe you will find that this is hard to do), or can you dodge psi storms like MKP in his GSTL game vs. PartinG? Can you pick up colossi to save them and drop them off to make another shot, before picking them up again - in the middle of a big fight? Those are feats of (relatively) high-level micro, and if you claim you can repeat any of those, I'd like you to show that. In fact, you could probably make a lot of money in SCII if you could. And I still don't get why people expect SC2 progamers to be as good at SC2 as BW pros are at BW. Strategies have had a decade to develop, and the correct way of doing most things has been figured out. BW has had years and years of fine-tuning, while SC2 has not. BW might be the more complex game, and it might, in the end, be the "better" game - but oversimplifying SC2 and claiming that anything progamers can do in the game is easily doable on an off night when you've had a few beers is stupid.
Guarantee you that was 100x harder than colossus shuttle micro (some hyperbole, but you get it)
100x harder is pushing it, there is some skill required to using micro on warp prisms (and medivacs / ovies for that matter) you basically keep the warp prism moving as well as microing the unit(s) you are dropping at the same time.. if anything they are likely around the same skill requirement unless you want to enlighten me.
100x was an exaggeration; I stated that it was hyperbole. But it is definitely harder.
In regards to your question, it seems to me that shuttle/prism micro is relatively the same, it's just the units (Reaver, Colossus) and overall mechanics of each game that are different. Reaver micro while macroing back at your base in inherently harder in BW than in sc2 because of MBS and auto-mine.
The AI for the reaver also isn't the greatest so occasionally you will get dud scarabs or it won't fire properly. Dropping a reaver, producing scarabs, targeting something, picking up, repeating, all the while actually having to move your screen away from the battle occasionally is much harder than dropping the colo, pretty much just letting it a-move since it's attack is AOE anyways, then picking it up again. All without having to look back at your base.
On April 24 2012 06:56 Zealously wrote: Xenocide_Knight: Arguments like that bother me. "Nothing I can't do with zero to minimal effort" is pure bullshit. Can you split a large amount of marines against speed-banelings (I believe you will find that this is hard to do), or can you dodge psi storms like MKP in his GSTL game vs. PartinG? Can you pick up colossi to save them and drop them off to make another shot, before picking them up again - in the middle of a big fight? Those are feats of (relatively) high-level micro, and if you claim you can repeat any of those, I'd like you to show that. In fact, you could probably make a lot of money in SCII if you could. And I still don't get why people expect SC2 progamers to be as good at SC2 as BW pros are at BW. Strategies have had a decade to develop, and the correct way of doing most things has been figured out. BW has had years and years of fine-tuning, while SC2 has not. BW might be the more complex game, and it might, in the end, be the "better" game - but oversimplifying SC2 and claiming that anything progamers can do in the game is easily doable on an off night when you've had a few beers is stupid.
Guarantee you that was 100x harder than colossus shuttle micro (some hyperbole, but you get it)
100x harder is pushing it, there is some skill required to using micro on warp prisms (and medivacs / ovies for that matter) you basically keep the warp prism moving as well as microing the unit(s) you are dropping at the same time.. if anything they are likely around the same skill requirement unless you want to enlighten me.
100x was an exaggeration; I stated that it was hyperbole. But it is definitely harder.
In regards to your question, it seems to me that shuttle/prism micro is relatively the same, it's just the units (Reaver, Colossus) and overall mechanics of each game that are different. Reaver micro while macroing back at your base in inherently harder in BW than in sc2 because of MBS and auto-mine.
The AI for the reaver also isn't the greatest so occasionally you will get dud scarabs or it won't fire properly. Dropping a reaver, producing scarabs, targeting something, picking up, repeating, all the while actually having to move your screen away from the battle occasionally is much harder than dropping the colo, pretty much just letting it a-move since it's attack is AOE anyways, then picking it up again. All without having to look back at your base.
woah woah hold up, you were arguing about the micro not that macro, you can't back off of that. My entire point was the micro is equivolent sure macro in general is harder in BW but so what? thats been beaten to death a million times over.
EPT
)
not all of the video is amazing but these types of splits are common in the high lvl of sc2 now.
