|
On January 20 2016 02:02 Probemicro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 01:13 LetaBot wrote:
In a 2 vs 2 Team Melee game where each teammate has to pick the same race ( not random, so basically a standard 1 v 1 but a second player also controlling the units ), which race would be the best option?
As in, which race benefits the most from the extra multi-tasking that a second player gives? definitely a toss up between zerg and terran, opinions will probably differ on who you ask. terran units simply have tons of micro potential that are not fully realised in engagements due to the need to balance micro and production. on the flipside zerg, sheer amount of units necesaary in lategame means a split in micro/macro reponsbility would allow for much better engagements/control overall. larva and resources would be more efficiently utilised, leading to a crazier sauron zerg. think jaedong on steroids. so i go with zerg
Zerg is definitely great. I played a Macro/Micro as Zerg a while back and I was the micro player. It is so liberating to dedicate all 10 hotkeys to Zerg units and not worry about missing larva at hatcheries. Having 10 hotkeys of Zerg units = perfect flanks all the time, every time.
However, I can also see how it would greatly benefit Terran bio play. Bio macro is also not that easy (at least for baddies like me), and to have to micro and dodge lurkers and micro vs. Muta at the same time? Too much. But with 4 hands, you're Light status.
For Protoss, probably the biggest benefit would be drop micro, maybe Sair/Reaver PvZ, Reaver openings PvT because it may confuse the two defending players into stumbling over each other? Later on, storm drops, etc.
When I first read the question, I wanted to disagree with you, because I am a Protoss main, but the more I think about it the more I have to begrudgingly agree. T/Z FTW.
I guess this applies pretty well to AI? 
|
On January 20 2016 13:07 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 02:02 Probemicro wrote:On January 20 2016 01:13 LetaBot wrote:
In a 2 vs 2 Team Melee game where each teammate has to pick the same race ( not random, so basically a standard 1 v 1 but a second player also controlling the units ), which race would be the best option?
As in, which race benefits the most from the extra multi-tasking that a second player gives? definitely a toss up between zerg and terran, opinions will probably differ on who you ask. terran units simply have tons of micro potential that are not fully realised in engagements due to the need to balance micro and production. on the flipside zerg, sheer amount of units necesaary in lategame means a split in micro/macro reponsbility would allow for much better engagements/control overall. larva and resources would be more efficiently utilised, leading to a crazier sauron zerg. think jaedong on steroids. so i go with zerg Zerg is definitely great. I played a Macro/Micro as Zerg a while back and I was the micro player. It is so liberating to dedicate all 10 hotkeys to Zerg units and not worry about missing larva at hatcheries. Having 10 hotkeys of Zerg units = perfect flanks all the time, every time. However, I can also see how it would greatly benefit Terran bio play. Bio macro is also not that easy (at least for baddies like me), and to have to micro and dodge lurkers and micro vs. Muta at the same time? Too much. But with 4 hands, you're Light status. For Protoss, probably the biggest benefit would be drop micro, maybe Sair/Reaver PvZ, Reaver openings PvT because it may confuse the two defending players into stumbling over each other? Later on, storm drops, etc. When I first read the question, I wanted to disagree with you, because I am a Protoss main, but the more I think about it the more I have to begrudgingly agree. T/Z FTW. I guess this applies pretty well to AI?
Indeed it does, that is partly why I asked 
|
On January 17 2016 04:18 Jealous wrote:
Kitchen sink in name sounds like this TvZ build I do, but I doubt it's the same one. Basically I go 1 rax 1 fac 1 port. This opening gives you a lot of flexibility to counter what Zerg is doing, but typically I make 1 wraith for harass and scouting, then dropship, then Valk if they spire. If they go Hydra I go siege tank bio. Otherwise I make vulture and mine and drop those instead of bio. You can bunker on your cliff for added safety. It is a very flexible micro - intensive build which might be interesting vs. Zerg. I certainly have fun playing it, but I'm a scrub so I probably have no clue what I'm talking about.
That's the weirdest build that you can pull off against a normal Zerg: It dies immediately to 9 Pool Speed on maps where you can't wall and to 2 Hatch Muta otherwise. What the hell are the Zergs that you're going against doing?
|
On January 21 2016 06:35 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 04:18 Jealous wrote:
Kitchen sink in name sounds like this TvZ build I do, but I doubt it's the same one. Basically I go 1 rax 1 fac 1 port. This opening gives you a lot of flexibility to counter what Zerg is doing, but typically I make 1 wraith for harass and scouting, then dropship, then Valk if they spire. If they go Hydra I go siege tank bio. Otherwise I make vulture and mine and drop those instead of bio. You can bunker on your cliff for added safety. It is a very flexible micro - intensive build which might be interesting vs. Zerg. I certainly have fun playing it, but I'm a scrub so I probably have no clue what I'm talking about. That's the weirdest build that you can pull off against a normal Zerg: It dies immediately to 9 Pool Speed on maps where you can't wall and to 2 Hatch Muta otherwise. What the hell are the Zergs that you're going against doing?
They are doing 12h/12p 11h ^^; If I can't wall then of course I go Rax FE. Wall or half-wall + scout is critical for this build.
|
On January 21 2016 12:24 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 06:35 EsX_Raptor wrote:On January 17 2016 04:18 Jealous wrote:
Kitchen sink in name sounds like this TvZ build I do, but I doubt it's the same one. Basically I go 1 rax 1 fac 1 port. This opening gives you a lot of flexibility to counter what Zerg is doing, but typically I make 1 wraith for harass and scouting, then dropship, then Valk if they spire. If they go Hydra I go siege tank bio. Otherwise I make vulture and mine and drop those instead of bio. You can bunker on your cliff for added safety. It is a very flexible micro - intensive build which might be interesting vs. Zerg. I certainly have fun playing it, but I'm a scrub so I probably have no clue what I'm talking about. That's the weirdest build that you can pull off against a normal Zerg: It dies immediately to 9 Pool Speed on maps where you can't wall and to 2 Hatch Muta otherwise. What the hell are the Zergs that you're going against doing? They are doing 12h/12p 11h ^^; If I can't wall then of course I go Rax FE. Wall or half-wall + scout is critical for this build.
Interesting. I'm still unsure how it'd fare against a 2 Hatch Muta (not sure how the timings would line up), but if Zerg goes for Spire, you could go for a Vulture drop, I think.
Edit: I just tested this, and your Vulture drop would arrive around the time his 6 Mutas pop, so it's not looking good against 2 Hatch Muta.
|
United States11393 Posts
On January 21 2016 18:24 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 12:24 Jealous wrote:On January 21 2016 06:35 EsX_Raptor wrote:On January 17 2016 04:18 Jealous wrote:
Kitchen sink in name sounds like this TvZ build I do, but I doubt it's the same one. Basically I go 1 rax 1 fac 1 port. This opening gives you a lot of flexibility to counter what Zerg is doing, but typically I make 1 wraith for harass and scouting, then dropship, then Valk if they spire. If they go Hydra I go siege tank bio. Otherwise I make vulture and mine and drop those instead of bio. You can bunker on your cliff for added safety. It is a very flexible micro - intensive build which might be interesting vs. Zerg. I certainly have fun playing it, but I'm a scrub so I probably have no clue what I'm talking about. That's the weirdest build that you can pull off against a normal Zerg: It dies immediately to 9 Pool Speed on maps where you can't wall and to 2 Hatch Muta otherwise. What the hell are the Zergs that you're going against doing? They are doing 12h/12p 11h ^^; If I can't wall then of course I go Rax FE. Wall or half-wall + scout is critical for this build. Interesting. I'm still unsure how it'd fare against a 2 Hatch Muta (not sure how the timings would line up), but if Zerg goes for Spire, you could go for a Vulture drop, I think. Edit: I just tested this, and your Vulture drop would arrive around the time his 6 Mutas pop, so it's not looking good against 2 Hatch Muta.
Going vult drop vs it is stupid as that is an adaptation vs 3hatch typically. Vs 2hatch, you just rush a wraith and kill all of his overlords (kills ~2-5 vs no den and 1-2 vs den). The overlord kills delay him super heavily and lets you get up whatever tech you choose to deal with mutas ie valks etc.. Terran also has an option to get speed off of the one fac which forces the muta to be everywhere at once too dealing with the speed vultures. If zerg skips muta then terran also has options in dealing with that too but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Anyways, due to the earlier tech investment, this also leads to a really super strong pre-defiler timing with all of the tanks and vessels you have accumulated.
There are tons of vods of Oov/Fantasy/Canata etc showing how this plays out. It's just really hard to actually do as it requires a lot more game sense than typical tvz builds as you can die to some of this silliest stuff if you aren't aware. Also, not mentioned earlier but it works well off of a 8rax too.
|
Where can i find a Zerg beginners guide for the mechanics, how the conrtol groups and Larva and really points and so on work?
|
Stupid question but in ZvP is it better to get 3rd hatch as early as possible (around 12/13 supply) or slightly delayed by making some additional drones first?
Often a probe blocks my natural with pylon so I get hatch at third first and then take my natural. I always make drones till 15 in this case but I'm not sure whether it's the best decision.
I've tested it in a few games and it's hard to tell but I think getting hatch at 12/13 supply gives a marginal amount of extra minerals (100-200) by minute 6 (around time that spire finishes). (checked by total resources mined)
+ Show Spoiler + The difference in 3rd hatch timing is about 20-25 seconds.
|
On January 21 2016 23:58 DERASTAT wrote:
Where can i find a Zerg beginners guide for the mechanics, how the conrtol groups and Larva and really points and so on work?
Control groups:
CTRL + number = sets current selection to number of choice.
SHIFT + number = adds current selection to group of choice. Trying to add units to a group with a building will do nothing, same for the inverse situation.
Save locations:
SHIFT + F2, F3 or F4 = saves current location.
Rally points:
If set on terrain, units will go there.
If set on other units, new units will follow the target until it dies, rally point will be then set to last known location for the target.
If set on buildings, units will go there and stay put
If set on minerals/geiser, units will go there and stay put
Larva: idk what you wanna know about really. If you came from SC2 there is not injection in BW.
Edit: Full list of shortcuts can be found here:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Keyboard_Shortcuts
It's missing the CTRL + C, which has the same function as ALT + C
|
On January 21 2016 21:40 Harem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 18:24 EsX_Raptor wrote:On January 21 2016 12:24 Jealous wrote:On January 21 2016 06:35 EsX_Raptor wrote:On January 17 2016 04:18 Jealous wrote:
Kitchen sink in name sounds like this TvZ build I do, but I doubt it's the same one. Basically I go 1 rax 1 fac 1 port. This opening gives you a lot of flexibility to counter what Zerg is doing, but typically I make 1 wraith for harass and scouting, then dropship, then Valk if they spire. If they go Hydra I go siege tank bio. Otherwise I make vulture and mine and drop those instead of bio. You can bunker on your cliff for added safety. It is a very flexible micro - intensive build which might be interesting vs. Zerg. I certainly have fun playing it, but I'm a scrub so I probably have no clue what I'm talking about. That's the weirdest build that you can pull off against a normal Zerg: It dies immediately to 9 Pool Speed on maps where you can't wall and to 2 Hatch Muta otherwise. What the hell are the Zergs that you're going against doing? They are doing 12h/12p 11h ^^; If I can't wall then of course I go Rax FE. Wall or half-wall + scout is critical for this build. Interesting. I'm still unsure how it'd fare against a 2 Hatch Muta (not sure how the timings would line up), but if Zerg goes for Spire, you could go for a Vulture drop, I think. Edit: I just tested this, and your Vulture drop would arrive around the time his 6 Mutas pop, so it's not looking good against 2 Hatch Muta. Going vult drop vs it is stupid as that is an adaptation vs 3hatch typically. Vs 2hatch, you just rush a wraith and kill all of his overlords (kills ~2-5 vs no den and 1-2 vs den). The overlord kills delay him super heavily and lets you get up whatever tech you choose to deal with mutas ie valks etc.. Terran also has an option to get speed off of the one fac which forces the muta to be everywhere at once too dealing with the speed vultures. If zerg skips muta then terran also has options in dealing with that too but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Anyways, due to the earlier tech investment, this also leads to a really super strong pre-defiler timing with all of the tanks and vessels you have accumulated. There are tons of vods of Oov/Fantasy/Canata etc showing how this plays out. It's just really hard to actually do as it requires a lot more game sense than typical tvz builds as you can die to some of this silliest stuff if you aren't aware. Also, not mentioned earlier but it works well off of a 8rax too.
This. As I said, I don't always Vulture drop, for the very reason EsX_Raptor mentioned. It's just an option. That's the beauty of this build - options. Versus 2 Hatch Muta, you can go Valk. You can add a second barracks and go for more bio instead. The great part is that your Wraith works like a Corsair in the sense that it can scout the Zerg tech and then kill Drones/Overlords, which like Harem said buys you time to commit to the correct response. I found this build to be difficult in terms of mechanics as well - losing ANY unit when you are usually operating with specialists like Wraith/Dropship/Valkyrie/Vulture and not a big bio army is devastating.
|
How to know the max rank of someone on ICCUP?
|
On January 22 2016 04:40 WrathSCII wrote:
How to know the max rank of someone on ICCUP?
Go to http://iccup.com/en/ and search for them. If it's a smurf there is no way to know for sure, but you can use common sense to draw a few conclusions from their match history (who are they beating etc).
|
On January 22 2016 04:53 Scarbo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 04:40 WrathSCII wrote:
How to know the max rank of someone on ICCUP? Go to http://iccup.com/en/ and search for them. If it's a smurf there is no way to know for sure, but you can use common sense to draw a few conclusions from their match history (who are they beating etc).
or if they finished last season with 40-2 C- you can expect them to have a higher max rank then C- :>
|
|
|
On January 13 2016 19:16 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2016 16:59 J-dawg wrote:
Would Brood War be to easy and not much of a challenge if somehow Blizzard made it to where you could double click buildings and it would select multiple buildings?(10+)Or if we could just make one big drag and select 100 units or something? Definitely not
Why not?
|
On January 22 2016 16:07 J-dawg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2016 19:16 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On January 12 2016 16:59 J-dawg wrote:
Would Brood War be to easy and not much of a challenge if somehow Blizzard made it to where you could double click buildings and it would select multiple buildings?(10+)Or if we could just make one big drag and select 100 units or something? Definitely not Why not?
Because there is much much more to playing the game well than finding the extra seconds it takes to select buildings individually to produce or to do 1A2A3A4A5A when you want to move all your units. If it was possible to multi-select buildings or select 100 units, that would free up seconds that you can use to observe things, micro, position forces, etc. Players who are not near the top would be able to macro up and move their stuff making less mistakes, but they'd still totally lose to the guys who currently always beat them not only for making no such mistakes, but for all the other things that they do better : decision making, strategy & tactics, positionning, baits, creativity, you name it. There is a lot lot more to playing well and improving yourself than getting your macro and movement up to speed ; people who are really really good are not just reaching some ceiling where they are only working on macro or army movement speed. That's why I wrote "definitely not"
It is true that control is very hard, and it can drag you down quite a bit if you don't play every day. When you make big mistakes in control, it can really negate your efforts in other areas and make it seem that control is the main difficulty. I have felt that way sometimes when I get tired of some things and do shitty control and lose because of that. But my passion for the game lives because I know that's not true and there is much more to enjoy and get better at, like the game promises when you first look at it. In my opinion, BW would gain from being able to select multiple buildings (up to 12) and put them in a group and produce like SC2, and from automine. Something for being able to select more units could be nice; maybe if there was a differentiation depending on unit size or supply it would be nice, like small units taking half a spot (glings, scourges, marines, workers..)? Being able to select 100 units though would make a problem for the UI, the wireframe boxes at the bottom of the screen are really good and important for the game, but it's true when you think about it, why not make an exception just to make it easier to freaking box whatever and tell them to go somewhere, why not allow that? You do need to spread your forces and give them different orders anyway, including individually. But a bit more freedom to select more things would be good imo, for accessibility as well.
So, I think some work on this stuff would benefit the game, making correct choices, and definitely would not make it "not much of a challenge"! However, not trusting today's Blizzard at all to make any kind of modification to the game, I'd rather see community modders try that stuff so that it can be tested but need source code?^^
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 23 2016 00:59 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 16:07 J-dawg wrote:On January 13 2016 19:16 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On January 12 2016 16:59 J-dawg wrote:
Would Brood War be to easy and not much of a challenge if somehow Blizzard made it to where you could double click buildings and it would select multiple buildings?(10+)Or if we could just make one big drag and select 100 units or something? Definitely not Why not? Because there is much much more to playing the game well than finding the extra seconds it takes to select buildings individually to produce or to do 1A2A3A4A5A when you want to move all your units. If it was possible to multi-select buildings or select 100 units, that would free up seconds that you can use to observe things, micro, position forces, etc. Players who are not near the top would be able to macro up and move their stuff making less mistakes, but they'd still totally lose to the guys who currently always beat them not only for making no such mistakes, but for all the other things that they do better : decision making, strategy & tactics, positionning, baits, creativity, you name it. There is a lot lot more to playing well and improving yourself than getting your macro and movement up to speed ; people who are really really good are not just reaching some ceiling where they are only working on macro or army movement speed. That's why I wrote "definitely not" It is true that control is very hard, and it can drag you down quite a bit if you don't play every day. When you make big mistakes in control, it can really negate your efforts in other areas and make it seem that control is the main difficulty. I have felt that way sometimes when I get tired of some things and do shitty control and lose because of that. But my passion for the game lives because I know that's not true and there is much more to enjoy and get better at, like the game promises when you first look at it. In my opinion, BW would gain from being able to select multiple buildings (up to 12) and put them in a group and produce like SC2, and from automine. Something for being able to select more units could be nice; maybe if there was a differentiation depending on unit size or supply it would be nice, like small units taking half a spot (glings, scourges, marines, workers..)? Being able to select 100 units though would make a problem for the UI, the wireframe boxes at the bottom of the screen are really good and important for the game, but it's true when you think about it, why not make an exception just to make it easier to freaking box whatever and tell them to go somewhere, why not allow that? You do need to spread your forces and give them different orders anyway, including individually. But a bit more freedom to select more things would be good imo, for accessibility as well. So, I think some work on this stuff would benefit the game, making correct choices, and definitely would not make it "not much of a challenge"! However, not trusting today's Blizzard at all to make any kind of modification to the game, I'd rather see community modders try that stuff so that it can be tested but need source code?^^
Although I agree that the game would still be challenging, anything can be a challenge under the right circunstances. Even League Of Legends can be a challenge if you play against opponents of equal skill. That's not enough reason to change the game though.
BW's balance is heavily reliant on it's mechanics. For example, units that are strong but hard to use would become OP, strategies that are good but hard to pull off would as well, and even entire races would become better than others. Yes the game punishes you if you don't play for a while, but that goes for every mechanical skill in life. If you don't play piano for even a day you'll be worse, anyone that has played an instrument knows the feeling of waking up and not being able to play the song you were playing the night before. Does that mean instruments should be changed? If you don't practice a martial art for a month you'll be worse as well. That's what makes it rewarding. Things achieved too easily are taken too lightly.
Take automining as an example. Say your opponent deals a lot of dmg to you early, but by having stronger multitask you manage to do some multi-harass plays and come back in the game. Wouldn't you agree that if your opponent had extra free actions to defend you'd be less likely to come back? How boring would the game be to play, and even worse to watch, if this was the case? The more you make the mechanics easier the more you take weight from the "real time" aspect and put on the "strategy" one.
The things you mention that a player could use to overpower another
"(decision making, strategy & tactics, positionning, baits, creativity)"
are all strategy related.
If you feel so strongly about the strategical part go play games that focus on it. There are lots of them out. BW is not one and shouldn't be changing into it imo, specially considering it's the only one of it's kind.
|
Well it probably won't be modified anyway and it doesn't need it but yeah really disagree with you, automine is a very obvious simple improvement that could be made I can't really see a negative impact for it that counterbalances reasonably the positive.
I disagree with you that BW is not a game that focuses on strategy, I think it's a good 25% of the game at least (throwing a number), it does depend on your style and perhaps to an extent which race you play. There are many ways to do things and you can win for making better choices, not just for being mechanically better. Terran is more mechanical and very tactical, Zerg is very prone to all kinds of aggressive baits (based on income, mass or tech), and Protoss for me is very analytical, reading your opponent right and making counters is the focus (that's what I work on the most, enjoy and get better with). All races have room for focusing on strategy though. It depends on what kind of player you are I guess.
+ Show Spoiler +I play and have played a lot of different games, but please don't tell me to go play something else cause you don't agree with me I don't like it. I'm not telling you to go play a game that has no strategy in it because you don't agree with me.
|
On January 23 2016 02:59 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Well it probably won't be modified anyway and it doesn't need it but yeah really disagree with you, automine is a very obvious simple improvement that could be made I can't really see a negative impact for it that counterbalances reasonably the positive. I disagree with you that BW is not a game that focuses on strategy, I think it's a good 25% of the game at least (throwing a number), it does depend on your style and perhaps to an extent which race you play. There are many ways to do things and you can win for making better choices, not just for being mechanically better. Terran is more mechanical and very tactical, Zerg is very prone to all kinds of aggressive baits (based on income, mass or tech), and Protoss for me is very analytical, reading your opponent right and making counters is the focus (that's what I work on the most, enjoy and get better with). All races have room for focusing on strategy though. It depends on what kind of player you are I guess. + Show Spoiler +I play and have played a lot of different games, but please don't tell me to go play something else cause you don't agree with me I don't like it. I'm not telling you to go play a game that has no strategy in it because you don't agree with me.
I never said BW is not focused on strategy. I said BW has a unique balance that would be broken if you reduce the mechanical aspect. It has both strategy AND mechanics. If you put automine, which in your mind seems to be obvious, it would shift the focus, even if just a little, towards the strategical side. Then you add something like multi-building selection and it shifts a little more, then you add unlimited unit selection and a little more. So where do you draw the line?
BW has been the way it is for over a decade and it's been proven to be balanced. Changing anything would affect other aspects, and a few patches later we would have a completely different game.
I also never said you should play something else because you don't agree with me. Don't twist my words. I said you should play something else because you don't seem to like BW the way it is, and the description you gave of the changes you'd make has already been done in other games.
|
Yes as I said correct choices for any changes would have to be made and a line must be drawn it's what I wrote in my post. I drew the line for unlimited unit selection with the verb "could", opening for discussion with a question about it.
I don't think it is fair to place the mechanical and strategical parts of the game as being necessarily in conflict. If you give players a tool for mechanically executing redundant things which are not decisions more easily, such as MBS or automine, you actually give room for more mechanical focus on micro, tactics, simcity, and other things you can use multitasking for, including observing the battle field, open to player preference and style, better meshing mechanics and strategy together. Mechanics do not necessarily hamper strategy, because even if you can't free up time to do what you're thinking about, you can still think about it while you struggle with your controls^^ you just may lack time to execute it fully. For the same reason, strategy doesn't necessarily hamper emphasis on mechanics, as long as execution of strategy involves mechanics which is always the case in brood war. I don't believe MBS and automine would shatter the balance and nature of the game at all, not even the balance between mechanics and strategy. Such features having been done in other games of course doesn't mean they necessarily would be bad for BW.
My answer was about the question of whether BW would "not be much of a challenge" if MBS was implemented, plus the same question if unlimited unit selection was implemented, raising the question of the nature of the difficulty of the game. I love BW the way it is, which is not incompatible with having an opinion on how it could possibly be improved. Therefore, I would like that you please don't tell me to go play something else, or I might do the same to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
