I don't think you get what I mean by figuring out, figuring things out is in every single new game, including BW, at the start of every game people are gonna cry OP about something, and then a year later people laugh how someone could ever think of that.
BW has been figured out over 12 years. SC2 is still being figured out, currently on its 2nd year.
True, we heared that tousand of times, nobody denies that
thus call us after 2 years, when it will be already better.
On April 25 2012 04:29 Hiea wrote: Top pros micro a lot better than what you give them credit for in 4. Ling / Baneling is an example where even though the speed of those are so insanely fast, people can still split up 1 ling while doing everything else, sniping caster units with a small amount of units.
Protoss is most prominent to 1a, but its been figured out.
There was a time when Broodlords were auto win with 1a, then people figured them out, dropping, attacking where broodlords are not, and when the engagement comes, spreading is important for both sides in most cases.
if you 1a vs a good player who can micro, your gonna lose.
You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps. There is literally no reason in alot of cases to micro individual zergling / baneling groups against marine tank once you set up their pathing because of how the game is paced. Again I said situations where micro is prevalent do exist in SC2 but usually in early - mid game. There's almost no situation in BW where 1Aing can become the optimal solution.
Wrong. End of story.
Give me a situation.
Bunch of tanks line are in the open and without spider mine you have a control group of zealot ? Ready go ! 1a2a3a4a
Even then you can micro the zealots to different tanks =_= that's not optimal
Wait...yes it is. Pros do it all the time. Same thing with 1Aing your 3-3 mech ball through a protoss army. You 1a2a3a4a5a, go back to macro, and then come back to the battle.
At this point, all you're really saying is....the optimal situation in SC2 is for you to 1A through stuff because actual skill like separating your zealots to different units is pointless and dumb.
It's pointless and dumb to spread units to avoid aoe damage and cause the enemy units to do aoe damage to themselves. okay.jpg. I guess it's pointless and dumb to use infested marines next to tanks too then, or spread hydras vs storm and reaver.
On April 25 2012 04:29 Hiea wrote: Top pros micro a lot better than what you give them credit for in 4. Ling / Baneling is an example where even though the speed of those are so insanely fast, people can still split up 1 ling while doing everything else, sniping caster units with a small amount of units.
Protoss is most prominent to 1a, but its been figured out.
There was a time when Broodlords were auto win with 1a, then people figured them out, dropping, attacking where broodlords are not, and when the engagement comes, spreading is important for both sides in most cases.
if you 1a vs a good player who can micro, your gonna lose.
You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps. There is literally no reason in alot of cases to micro individual zergling / baneling groups against marine tank once you set up their pathing because of how the game is paced. Again I said situations where micro is prevalent do exist in SC2 but usually in early - mid game. There's almost no situation in BW where 1Aing can become the optimal solution.
Wrong. End of story.
Give me a situation.
Bunch of tanks line are in the open and without spider mine you have a control group of zealot ? Ready go ! 1a2a3a4a
Even then you can micro the zealots to different tanks =_= that's not optimal
No I am serious Dude 1aing control group of zealots in to tanks is really optimal . It helps me knowing that terran will be busy trying to defend his tanks from dying and I can macro my gateways to make another wave of zealots and expoing at the same time .
Your making too many assumptions in your scenario, I might as well say that it's optimal to 1A marines against drones when my marines are blocking the only exit of the drones, lol.
I usually do drops occasionally and I don't have time to baby sit my troops so I usually leave my MnM or vultures on 1a and go back to base to macro .
I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
Independent of micro discussions, the "ball vs ball" phenomena is still encouraged by fundamental things in sc2 design imo. A lot has to do with the maps. And ball vs ball detracts from multitasking as a side note.
I haven't been watching sc2 as intently as I used to, but I never/very very rarely saw anyone expand far away from their main base unless it's a ninja expo (akin to jjakji vs leenock or drg? gsl finals). And that's because you can't have as much map control in sc2 as you can in sc:bw, combined with less defender's advantage and lack of high ground. So that makes larger maps in sc2 not mean more action across the map (as it generally does in sc:bw) but means sticking to your starting location and slowly expanding across the map. An entirely different game. Large maps in sc2 thus far are made to be like tal darim which really means "lots of expos but still wide open", which encourages large army vs large army rather than map positioning (compared to brood war).
As far as high ground mechanics go, things with rolling hills like heart break ridge or chupyung ryung or gladiator much different if the same maps were made in sc2. You can make a high ground advantage by making rolling hills with small chokes (via destructible rocks or whatever) but it's a lot different. Lurkers/tanks with mines on low ground in front on top of ramps can really take map control well while sc2 doesn't have the same equivalent of staticish map position (you can position your army in good locations, but not mines/swarm/whatever).
But besides from high ground, there are numerous things in sc2 that discourages taking far away expansions. Protoss can warp in anywhere on the map, so a ninja expansion can easily be killed/threated by a small warp in (such that PvX matchup it's not a good idea to expand to a place you can't defend easily). The entire zerg creep mechanic encourages it to not expand all the way across the map (such that ZvX matchup zerg wants to stick to expanding closeby. Terran in sc2 is much much more bioball army and not have mines such that terran is encouraged to be more ball dependent). Protoss in sc2 always has blink so that doesn't really help with many expansions.
tvp bw: terran can take its fourth across map (say in 4p map like ground zero) as it's semi ninjaish but terran can take map control/vision with mines and vultures. As well as placing tanks on top of ramps. tvp sc2: terran is going to have mobile bioball army that gets much stronger when clumped together. Even if he expands cross map 5 stalkers can get behind mineral line and kill scvs freely from any planetary. So he will take expansions close to him than go across map. With mobile bioball he doesn't have the same defensive posture as bw and thus can't split army to take map. His army ends up being a ball that attacks.
pvt bw: protoss needs to expand a lot and can stop vultures fairly good with pylon wall offs. Drops can hurt protoss but are quick to clean up in small numbers (4 vulture/2 tank drop is easy to stop if well prepared). The nature of the matchup also makes it hard for terran to really get good drops going to threaten enough expansions. Protoss is the most ballish race, as it wants to crush weaknesses/pieces of the terran when terran moves out. pvt sc2: I don't play protoss but since terran in sc2 wants to get medivacs as part of its ball, sending 2 dropships of marine/maurader can kill far expansions much easier than 2 tanks/4 vultures could in brood war. Plus it's not out of the terran's way to get dropships (i.e. medivacs)
zvall sc:bw: lurkers provide very good static defense on ramps and there are such things as swarm. Mutas control map early on (either to kill speed zealots or to keep terran at bay) and allows for safe far away expansions. Hydras are actually good to mass. zvall sc2: the creep mechanic encourages zerg to expand nearby and not across the map. Armies designed to "overwhelm" protoss or terran army (i.e. mass roach, or banelings, etc). Mutas are much weaker at keeping an army at bay, but instead just threaten "if you leave I'll kill your economy". However turrets are much stronger and protoss is content with balling up. tvz brood war: expanding across the map can happens with mech transition. and 1 group of marine/medic on top of a ramp will defend a lot.
mirror matchups are different but similar sentiments (zvz you don't ninja expo in either bw or sc2; tvt is a positional battle still; pvp in both you don't really expand cross map and ball up more for both games).
tl;dr: fundamental design encourages more ball vs ball stuff. Even with the little 6 mineral 1 gas bases I imagine you don't expand far away because the units still don't hold; you expand more but you still try to expand closer (I imagine). Like on tal darim where you take natural -> take the third by breaking the rocks -> take fourth and fifth at the nearby locations, etc.
Whereas brood war protoss and zerg quite often take their thirds all the way across the map.
On April 25 2012 04:29 Hiea wrote: Top pros micro a lot better than what you give them credit for in 4. Ling / Baneling is an example where even though the speed of those are so insanely fast, people can still split up 1 ling while doing everything else, sniping caster units with a small amount of units.
Protoss is most prominent to 1a, but its been figured out.
There was a time when Broodlords were auto win with 1a, then people figured them out, dropping, attacking where broodlords are not, and when the engagement comes, spreading is important for both sides in most cases.
if you 1a vs a good player who can micro, your gonna lose.
You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps. There is literally no reason in alot of cases to micro individual zergling / baneling groups against marine tank once you set up their pathing because of how the game is paced. Again I said situations where micro is prevalent do exist in SC2 but usually in early - mid game. There's almost no situation in BW where 1Aing can become the optimal solution.
Wrong. End of story.
Give me a situation.
Bunch of tanks line are in the open and without spider mine you have a control group of zealot ? Ready go ! 1a2a3a4a
Even then you can micro the zealots to different tanks =_= that's not optimal
No I am serious Dude 1aing control group of zealots in to tanks is really optimal . It helps me knowing that terran will be busy trying to defend his tanks from dying and I can macro my gateways to make another wave of zealots and expoing at the same time .
Your making too many assumptions in your scenario, I might as well say that it's optimal to 1A marines against drones when my marines are blocking the only exit of the drones, lol.
I usually do drops occasionally and I don't have time to baby sit my troops so I usually leave my MnM or vultures on 1a and go back to base to macro .
Yes I know but you are rewarded for microing them, there's a fundamental difference there.
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do.
Anything that deals damage to my enemies economy on 1a is a optimal result for me .
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do.
Anything that deals damage to my enemies economy on 1a is a optimal result for me .
Anything that deals more damage to your enemy's economy is better? >_>
On April 25 2012 04:29 Hiea wrote: Top pros micro a lot better than what you give them credit for in 4. Ling / Baneling is an example where even though the speed of those are so insanely fast, people can still split up 1 ling while doing everything else, sniping caster units with a small amount of units.
Protoss is most prominent to 1a, but its been figured out.
There was a time when Broodlords were auto win with 1a, then people figured them out, dropping, attacking where broodlords are not, and when the engagement comes, spreading is important for both sides in most cases.
if you 1a vs a good player who can micro, your gonna lose.
You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps. There is literally no reason in alot of cases to micro individual zergling / baneling groups against marine tank once you set up their pathing because of how the game is paced. Again I said situations where micro is prevalent do exist in SC2 but usually in early - mid game. There's almost no situation in BW where 1Aing can become the optimal solution.
Wrong. End of story.
Give me a situation.
Bunch of tanks line are in the open and without spider mine you have a control group of zealot ? Ready go ! 1a2a3a4a
Even then you can micro the zealots to different tanks =_= that's not optimal
Wait...yes it is. Pros do it all the time. Same thing with 1Aing your 3-3 mech ball through a protoss army. You 1a2a3a4a5a, go back to macro, and then come back to the battle.
At this point, all you're really saying is....the optimal situation in SC2 is for you to 1A through stuff because actual skill like separating your zealots to different units is pointless and dumb.
It's pointless and dumb to spread units to avoid aoe damage and cause the enemy units to do aoe damage to themselves. okay.jpg. I guess it's pointless and dumb to use infested marines next to tanks too then, or spread hydras vs storm and reaver.
I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. I think you're just reinforcing my argument, which I guess is fine.
I think all of these posts only serve to demonstrate that people make a bunch of really obvious excuses for SC2 and how it's mechanically inferior to BW. People also come up with lame reasons with obvious holes, and try to supplement that by saying that SC2 focuses on something else.
At that point, the only I can say is: "Whatever. BW just does all of that stuff and actually makes it look like it takes some effort."
I guess there's a mix up of what you consider optimal. Optimal is the best potential outcome given possible alternatives and choices, not just most gain for least effort.
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
Jesus Christ man. Let me quote you for you:
On April 25 2012 04:35 Caihead wrote: You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps.
Why doesn't that logic carry over to bw? Maybe sc2's faster pace means the 1a deathball might be an optimal solution more often, but you're playing a fallacy if you say a slower pace therefore means no deathballs. Think about a situation where a zerg's expanded to, say, 5 gas versus a toss's 3 gas - a pretty common situation. In this case it's best for the zerg to smash units against the toss ball with minimal battle micro and go back and macro instead, because if the toss ball gets too big / balanced, it can roll through all the expos and take the game. Even if the battle itself could be fought more optimally, it's ultimately better for the zerg to use repeated army trades to chip away at the toss ball, even if its inefficient.
On April 20 2012 22:28 blubbdavid wrote: That's it for me.
Oh come on, it's for e-sports man we should support them bw pro's going to sc2 as you can see even the coaches were having a blast talking about sc2 . I mean I don't mind seeing history repeat itself when this guy dominate the scene and the foreign scene will know where their standing is again after all . Korean dominance sound pretty sweet in my opinion.
k, but only if I get monthly packages of Redbull so that I stay awake during the games.
Seeing statements like this i am thankfull i am not a BW fan...such a childish talk.
What makes the game exciting is your approach to it and players you root for, i bet my hand you've never watched an intense sc2 match even, and no wonder you don't find it interesting since your mind is set to "BW IS THE TRUE STARCRAFT ANYTHING ELSE IS INVALID!!111"
SC2 is not even in it's half potential yet, it's too young, when the switch occurs, and bonjwas plays it, expansions come out i can not see the reason why SC2 shouldn't be bigger than BW. That's the reason i also can't understand why you people are sad, instead of being cheerful that your beloved players don't quit competetive scene.
Oh, I have seen some intense games, like TT1 vs MasterAsia, or the TSL3 finals. But truly impressive games in SC2 are so fucking rare, every week in BW Proleague there are so many intense games worth a half year of the entire SC2 competition.
You want to see a really, really impressive game of BW? Even with English commentary that which explains stuff to newbies? Here: Watch it in it's entirety. One of the best games ever.
Btw, Bonjwas are already playing the game -.-' And I am pretty sure SC2 has already surpassed the 50% potential point.
On April 25 2012 04:29 Hiea wrote: Top pros micro a lot better than what you give them credit for in 4. Ling / Baneling is an example where even though the speed of those are so insanely fast, people can still split up 1 ling while doing everything else, sniping caster units with a small amount of units.
Protoss is most prominent to 1a, but its been figured out.
There was a time when Broodlords were auto win with 1a, then people figured them out, dropping, attacking where broodlords are not, and when the engagement comes, spreading is important for both sides in most cases.
if you 1a vs a good player who can micro, your gonna lose.
You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps. There is literally no reason in alot of cases to micro individual zergling / baneling groups against marine tank once you set up their pathing because of how the game is paced. Again I said situations where micro is prevalent do exist in SC2 but usually in early - mid game. There's almost no situation in BW where 1Aing can become the optimal solution.
Wrong. End of story.
Give me a situation.
Bunch of tanks line are in the open and without spider mine you have a control group of zealot ? Ready go ! 1a2a3a4a
Even then you can micro the zealots to different tanks =_= that's not optimal
Wait...yes it is. Pros do it all the time. Same thing with 1Aing your 3-3 mech ball through a protoss army. You 1a2a3a4a5a, go back to macro, and then come back to the battle.
At this point, all you're really saying is....the optimal situation in SC2 is for you to 1A through stuff because actual skill like separating your zealots to different units is pointless and dumb.
It's pointless and dumb to spread units to avoid aoe damage and cause the enemy units to do aoe damage to themselves. okay.jpg. I guess it's pointless and dumb to use infested marines next to tanks too then, or spread hydras vs storm and reaver.
I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. I think you're just reinforcing my argument, which I guess is fine.
I think all of these posts only serve to demonstrate that people make a bunch of really obvious excuses for SC2 and how it's mechanically inferior to BW. People also come up with lame reasons with obvious holes, and try to supplement that by saying that SC2 focuses on something else.
At that point, the only I can say is: "Whatever. BW just does all of that stuff and actually makes it look like it takes some effort."
Nothing of what you said detracted from my original argument on page 50 though, your just arguing about my representation of rather or not 1A exists in BW or SC2, with out talking about the points about pacing or representation or audience's ability to discern what is happening.
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
On April 25 2012 04:35 Caihead wrote: You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps.
Why doesn't that logic carry over to bw? Maybe sc2's faster pace means the 1a deathball might be an optimal solution more often, but you're playing a fallacy if you say a slower pace therefore means no deathballs. Think about a situation where a zerg's expanded to, say, 5 gas versus a toss's 3 gas - a pretty common situation. In this case it's best for the zerg to smash units against the toss ball with minimal battle micro and go back and macro instead, because if the toss ball gets too big / balanced, it can roll through all the expos and take the game. Even if the battle itself could be fought more optimally, it's ultimately better for the zerg to use repeated army trades to chip away at the toss ball, even if its inefficient.
My entire argument was that, the way that it's optimal in BW leads to better spectator sport. Yes it does carry over.
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
Jesus Christ man. Let me quote you for you:
On April 25 2012 04:35 Caihead wrote: You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps.
Why doesn't that logic carry over to bw? Maybe sc2's faster pace means the 1a deathball might be an optimal solution more often, but you're playing a fallacy if you say a slower pace therefore means no deathballs. Think about a situation where a zerg's expanded to, say, 5 gas versus a toss's 3 gas - a pretty common situation. In this case it's best for the zerg to smash units against the toss ball with minimal battle micro and go back and macro instead, because if the toss ball gets too big / balanced, it can roll through all the expos and take the game. Even if the battle itself could be fought more optimally, it's ultimately better for the zerg to use repeated army trades to chip away at the toss ball, even if its inefficient.
My entire argument was that, the way that it's optimal in BW leads to better spectator sport. Yes it does carry over.
well then i have no idea what you and zergneedsfood were arguing about. lol.
btw guys in that little SC2 "micro" video u posted is stuff form this micro bot thingy. and set up stuff. so yeah sick micro.
not actually, only one example was made with a bot with the map editor (the one of the drop tanks vs raoches and ultralisk) and the other ones are real examples of micro of real games, i saw some of those games in a MLG or GSL
u mean like a 47min replay. 1 base and not even a mined out base? yeah totally real. not saying there is no micro in SC2 but if u need 2 add this stuff in a "micro highlight" video. it makes u think a little bit.
what are you talking about? i just re-watched the video and there is nothing like 47min 1 basing... the nly thing the author should not have added is the bot thing and the hellion micro vs zerglings (the hellion drop was great but hellions vs zerglings is an easy thing to do)
i dont see anywhere the 47 min replay.. are we talking about the same video?
mb u should look at it again and pay close attention to the part at 3:30.
On April 25 2012 04:53 N.geNuity wrote: Independent of micro discussions, the "ball vs ball" phenomena is still encouraged by fundamental things in sc2 design imo. A lot has to do with the maps. And ball vs ball detracts from multitasking as a side note.
I haven't been watching sc2 as intently as I used to, but I never/very very rarely saw anyone expand far away from their main base unless it's a ninja expo (akin to jjakji vs leenock or drg? gsl finals). And that's because you can't have as much map control in sc2 as you can in sc:bw, combined with less defender's advantage and lack of high ground. So that makes larger maps in sc2 not mean more action across the map (as it generally does in sc:bw) but means sticking to your starting location and slowly expanding across the map. An entirely different game. Large maps in sc2 thus far are made to be like tal darim which really means "lots of expos but still wide open", which encourages large army vs large army rather than map positioning (compared to brood war).
As far as high ground mechanics go, things with rolling hills like heart break ridge or chupyung ryung or gladiator much different if the same maps were made in sc2. You can make a high ground advantage by making rolling hills with small chokes (via destructible rocks or whatever) but it's a lot different. Lurkers/tanks with mines on low ground in front on top of ramps can really take map control well while sc2 doesn't have the same equivalent of staticish map position (you can position your army in good locations, but not mines/swarm/whatever).
But besides from high ground, there are numerous things in sc2 that discourages taking far away expansions. Protoss can warp in anywhere on the map, so a ninja expansion can easily be killed/threated by a small warp in (such that PvX matchup it's not a good idea to expand to a place you can't defend easily). The entire zerg creep mechanic encourages it to not expand all the way across the map (such that ZvX matchup zerg wants to stick to expanding closeby. Terran in sc2 is much much more bioball army and not have mines such that terran is encouraged to be more ball dependent). Protoss in sc2 always has blink so that doesn't really help with many expansions.
tvp bw: terran can take its fourth across map (say in 4p map like ground zero) as it's semi ninjaish but terran can take map control/vision with mines and vultures. As well as placing tanks on top of ramps. tvp sc2: terran is going to have mobile bioball army that gets much stronger when clumped together. Even if he expands cross map 5 stalkers can get behind mineral line and kill scvs freely from any planetary. So he will take expansions close to him than go across map. With mobile bioball he doesn't have the same defensive posture as bw and thus can't split army to take map. His army ends up being a ball that attacks.
pvt bw: protoss needs to expand a lot and can stop vultures fairly good with pylon wall offs. Drops can hurt protoss but are quick to clean up in small numbers (4 vulture/2 tank drop is easy to stop if well prepared). The nature of the matchup also makes it hard for terran to really get good drops going to threaten enough expansions. Protoss is the most ballish race, as it wants to crush weaknesses/pieces of the terran when terran moves out. pvt sc2: I don't play protoss but since terran in sc2 wants to get medivacs as part of its ball, sending 2 dropships of marine/maurader can kill far expansions much easier than 2 tanks/4 vultures could in brood war. Plus it's not out of the terran's way to get dropships (i.e. medivacs)
zvall sc:bw: lurkers provide very good static defense on ramps and there are such things as swarm. Mutas control map early on (either to kill speed zealots or to keep terran at bay) and allows for safe far away expansions. Hydras are actually good to mass. zvall sc2: the creep mechanic encourages zerg to expand nearby and not across the map. Armies designed to "overwhelm" protoss or terran army (i.e. mass roach, or banelings, etc). Mutas are much weaker at keeping an army at bay, but instead just threaten "if you leave I'll kill your economy". However turrets are much stronger and protoss is content with balling up. tvz brood war: expanding across the map can happens with mech transition. and 1 group of marine/medic on top of a ramp will defend a lot.
mirror matchups are different but similar sentiments (zvz you don't ninja expo in either bw or sc2; tvt is a positional battle still; pvp in both you don't really expand cross map and ball up more for both games).
tl;dr: fundamental design encourages more ball vs ball stuff. Even with the little 6 mineral 1 gas bases I imagine you don't expand far away because the units still don't hold; you expand more but you still try to expand closer (I imagine). Like on tal darim where you take natural -> take the third by breaking the rocks -> take fourth and fifth at the nearby locations, etc.
Whereas brood war protoss and zerg quite often take their thirds all the way across the map.
I totally agree even if I'm a Sc2 player and not a BW player. The game has still a lot of defects ! Lets hope hots and lotv will fix this without requiring 300 apm ^^
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
Jesus Christ man. Let me quote you for you:
On April 25 2012 04:35 Caihead wrote: You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps.
Why doesn't that logic carry over to bw? Maybe sc2's faster pace means the 1a deathball might be an optimal solution more often, but you're playing a fallacy if you say a slower pace therefore means no deathballs. Think about a situation where a zerg's expanded to, say, 5 gas versus a toss's 3 gas - a pretty common situation. In this case it's best for the zerg to smash units against the toss ball with minimal battle micro and go back and macro instead, because if the toss ball gets too big / balanced, it can roll through all the expos and take the game. Even if the battle itself could be fought more optimally, it's ultimately better for the zerg to use repeated army trades to chip away at the toss ball, even if its inefficient.
My entire argument was that, the way that it's optimal in BW leads to better spectator sport. Yes it does carry over.
well then i have no idea what you and zergneedsfood were arguing about. lol.
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
Jesus Christ man. Let me quote you for you:
On April 25 2012 04:35 Caihead wrote: You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps.
Why doesn't that logic carry over to bw? Maybe sc2's faster pace means the 1a deathball might be an optimal solution more often, but you're playing a fallacy if you say a slower pace therefore means no deathballs. Think about a situation where a zerg's expanded to, say, 5 gas versus a toss's 3 gas - a pretty common situation. In this case it's best for the zerg to smash units against the toss ball with minimal battle micro and go back and macro instead, because if the toss ball gets too big / balanced, it can roll through all the expos and take the game. Even if the battle itself could be fought more optimally, it's ultimately better for the zerg to use repeated army trades to chip away at the toss ball, even if its inefficient.
My entire argument was that, the way that it's optimal in BW leads to better spectator sport. Yes it does carry over.
You can say what you want about spectator sport, but because of how similiar SC2 and BW is, the spectator part becomes purely down to your own opinion, its not like any SC game vs forexample LoL, which is vastly different, and LoL games have all these items, which skills they pick, which is not obvious to the viewer, with those unknown to the spectator, its a worse spectator sport, but doesn't mean its bad.
On April 25 2012 04:51 Caihead wrote: I think your really missing the point of my argument, theres a difference between being able to do it and have good results, and literally doing it because it's the optimal thing to do. Microing vultures to plant mines when your engaging dragoons is the optimal thing to do and it doesn't involve 1Aing. Focusing down a building with your marines when theres no enemy forces with 1A is the optimal thing to do. Running zealots into a tank line just 1A and no micro can yield good results but isn't the optimal thing to do.
Jesus Christ man. Let me quote you for you:
On April 25 2012 04:35 Caihead wrote: You don't understand though, there exist situations in SC2 where the optimal solution is to 1A because like I said, the apm is better spent doing other things such as macroing, building, or microing other groups because you gain almost nothing for microing the units once you hit a level of dps.
Why doesn't that logic carry over to bw? Maybe sc2's faster pace means the 1a deathball might be an optimal solution more often, but you're playing a fallacy if you say a slower pace therefore means no deathballs. Think about a situation where a zerg's expanded to, say, 5 gas versus a toss's 3 gas - a pretty common situation. In this case it's best for the zerg to smash units against the toss ball with minimal battle micro and go back and macro instead, because if the toss ball gets too big / balanced, it can roll through all the expos and take the game. Even if the battle itself could be fought more optimally, it's ultimately better for the zerg to use repeated army trades to chip away at the toss ball, even if its inefficient.
My entire argument was that, the way that it's optimal in BW leads to better spectator sport. Yes it does carry over.
You can say what you want about spectator sport, but because of how similiar SC2 and BW is, the spectator part becomes purely down to your own opinion, its not like any SC game vs forexample LoL, which is vastly different, and LoL games have all these items, which skills they pick, which is not obvious to the viewer, with those unknown to the spectator, its a worse spectator sport, but doesn't mean its bad.
I never said SC2 is bad, or a bad spectator sport, or anything of the sort. I even said that its personal preference, but based on logic, I like BW for X reasons. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330806¤tpage=50#999 It's important to say why you like something when other people are arbituarily going to judge you by your taste.
EPT
