|
Because if you do the reason it's not here is not because timings aren't figured out but because the game doesn't favor the defender nearly as much as it does in sc:bw where macro games are far more common. So for those who do not know much about sc:bw let me list some of the differences.
The pathing and AI are both much worse in sc:bw so the attacker will be at a big disadvantage running into already positioned defences, especially if there's a ramp or a small opening. And if you shoot upwards you will miss 50% of the time. These two things are HUGE, especially considering how modern sc:bw maps are constructed. You can look up how the maps look here on teamliquid: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps
In SC2 attacking up a ramp or through a small opening really isn't all that hard, your units won't get stuck on each other and you won't be missing 50% of your shots while running up. On top of this we have maps with rocks blocking expansions, rocks opening up a backdoor to your main or your natural and on some maps the defender is even at a disadvantage because of destructable rocks just look at jungle basin or blistering sands.
The fix? Re-add the miss chance and make better maps (look at sc:bw maps for inspiration). And yes keep the high ground fog of war as well.
|
I agree with your comment on the pathing bugs and miss chances. The attacker is slightly better off in SC2 because these aren't around anymore. But miss % chances should not be added, because chance should in no way affect the outcome of this game. Particularly not if this is to become a major sport.
|
Forgive me if I didn't read your OP clearly, but to answer the title question, here's how I would like it to be broken down:
10% Cheese games
40% Short term games
50% Long term games
Generally, I find longer games a bit more fun to watch, but shorter games can also be sweet as well. Cannot leave out the cheese of course since it also gives the game an element of surprise aside from standardized games.
|
Blizzard must've had reasons to remove it.
Maybe they wanted the game to be more micro agressive and intensive?
|
it won't make the game random, it's gonna make the game more professional if anything. Pros simply won't attack up hill without a big advantage. And i wouldn't call it slightly better off, the pathing is terribad, the reason you see pros in sc:bw with what looks to be tiny armies expanding away is because of these reasons.
|
While I would agree with you that unit pathing makes it easier to attack along with the lack of miss %, I would also have to argue that mabye these "cheesy games" wouldn't take place if tier one weren't so mobile, and of course if the maps were bigger. I think that decreasing the speed of marines and zerglings (but PLEASE make lings stronger to compensate) would stop a lot of early rushes, along with maybe another static defense buff? to me it just feels like tier one units play out WAAAAAAAY differently compared to BW.
I remember zerglings TEARING APART marines like hot knife through butter. I also remember sunken colonies and bunkers being a lot more resilient and not dieing instantly. I think if the movement speed and strength of tier one and the strength of static defense were re evaluated by blizz that most of the early game rushing would be resolved, allowing them to focus more on late game balance.
EDIT: and when I say I remember marines getting torn apart by zerglings, I mean in small early game situations. not mid or late game.
|
Depends on what a macro game is. I love to watch 2 rax defended and turning into macro game since its action all game. If its just turtling up till 200 and one big clash then I could just aswell watch 2 players all in each other.
|
Its all about those mother ships, people like seeing the exotic units. In my opinion the current state of the game focuses balance on the early game. The longer the game goes on the more the races show their macro difference. Zerg is quite the power house in the late game. you dont need many buildings to summon large forces. toss and terran need early pressure to increase chances of winning. Thats why we see an explosion of plays like bitbybitprime. scv all ins. I think that zerg need an early game buff and a late game nerf, to fix a lot of this problem.
Can't wait for your opinions, Adun.
|
It's got to do with the economy.
SCBW was like this: 1st worker 60 minerals per minute.
2nd worker on same patch was 55 etc,40 , and lots of diminishing returns.
expanding early in sc1 allowed strong economy at lower cost, whereas now you'll try to saturate before expanding(e.g tvp matchup). its pointless to expand and risky(tech units powerful). 2nd workers needs diminishing returns if we are too see good games.
Now sc2 we have 40 minerals constant for 16 scvs on mineral line and a 1:1 trade off between gas and mineral collection rate. This means 1 basing is really strong.
the mechanics of bw favoured expanding because you can have 8 workers on your main and transfer the other 8 to your natural for income like 16*60minerals.
whereas now there's no incentive to do that because you can make quite a massive army and build stuff like colossus on 1- 2 base and they're so strong for example.
what they should do for sc2 is lower the gas income rate per geyser from 120 to say 90. This then will remove the effect of the perfect 1:1 ratio tradeoff and make collecting gas more devastating to your long term economy. Tech units are too powerful,(namely void/collosus builds all in).
Get rid of 1 mineral patch also down to 7, this way 80 minerals per minute will punish oversaturation.
|
disagree. This makes forcefield FAR too imbalanced as splitting an army during a battle uphill will inevitably cause the part on the bottom to be less than half as effective. Also, the mechanics of sc2 differ from brood war, so you really can't equate the two.
Also, I don't think the community wants less 'cheese' games. Let's face it, macro is well and good, and it's the right way to play the game. Heck, I know I love it, but cheese games are so much more fun to watch. I think it's just the ragers that lose to cheese that want more macro games.
|
5% Cheese games
25% Short term games
70% Long term games
Thats how I think games should be. Make maps 2 times bigger then the better player will almost always win... and lol? I dont think people want cheese games lol... cheese takes no skill at all to do. Macro is what determines how good a player is..
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Wtf are these arbitrary percentages...bad thread 0_0
|
There were totally reasonable Broodwar maps that didn't have a ramped main (e.g. Neo Medusa) and therefore weren't affected by the high-ground miss chance.
|
On December 15 2010 11:15 GQz wrote:
disagree. This makes forcefield FAR too imbalanced as splitting an army during a battle uphill will inevitably cause the part on the bottom to be less than half as effective. Also, the mechanics of sc2 differ from brood war, so you really can't equate the two.
Also, I don't think the community wants less 'cheese' games. Let's face it, macro is well and good, and it's the right way to play the game. Heck, I know I love it, but cheese games are so much more fun to watch. I think it's just the ragers that lose to cheese that want more macro games.
Of course these changes might create unbalances but that can be fixed after the basics are fixed.
And to the guy who mentioned the mineral collection rate i'm sure you're right. That might be another path to get to the same goal. What i wanted to highlight is that waiting for the pros to "find out the timings" won't change anything regarding epanding and getting macro games. The game simply doesn't allow it the same way as sc:bw does.
|
Taking out the high ground bonus takes out the random element, which is a good thing. You want the game as skill based as possible. you might luck out and kill the units on the hill right away, or they could live forever.
|
i rather like the way the new highground works
|
On December 15 2010 11:30 Subversion wrote:
i rather like the way the new highground works
agreed, and i don't think changing high ground changes will affect cheese or gamelength drastically.
|
I just think there's a problem with it in PvP. Why not 4gate when you build 4 units next to a pylon when he builds 3 units next to his pylon? Other than that, forcefield, salvageable bunkers, and queens are the defensive advantages of BW. I would like some kind of high ground advantage and positional play too, but you cannot say the defensive advantage is gone.
|
One thing to keep in mind is that BW didn't have defenders advantage like you probably think it did. It was a game that revolved heavily around being passive-aggressive and aggressive. End of story. No one wins BW by turtling without providing an overt threat. BW's "defenders advantage" only applied in the passive-aggressive state.
It was mostly the maps that allowed passive-aggressive play to be favored over purely aggressive play.
|
My main point was to point out what made macro in sc:bw the standard strategy and cheese a thing that happened every now and then and not the other way around. I don't care how it's "fixed" only that it is, if people don't want miss chance fine but something is needed if you want macro to be the standard.
|
On December 15 2010 11:01 LittleeD wrote:
Blizzard must've had reasons to remove it.
Maybe they wanted the game to be more micro agressive and intensive?
WarCraft 3 in Space FTW ???
|
On December 15 2010 11:48 Niji87 wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that BW didn't have defenders advantage like you probably think it did. It was a game that revolved heavily around being passive-aggressive and aggressive. End of story. No one wins BW by turtling without providing an overt threat. BW's "defenders advantage" only applied in the passive-aggressive state.
Yeah, Sum Siege Tanks on Highground protected by mine fields were no defenders advantage.
2 Reaver surrounded by 3 cannons and a shield battery on a choke point was no defenders advantage and could kill like 15 hydras or more?
Just 2 examples : |
|
I personally would not like the return of the % to miss attacking up a hill. What if Blizzard makes a map like Heartbreak Ridge, or a map with large wide hills where a terran tank crawl would hurt like all heck.
However I do agree with how someone said that the economic collection rate should be fixed, or at least less mineral patches per base/expansion like someone noted. One base play is just too strong at the moment, so of course you'll have players that will want to engage in a push sooner than that in BW, where early game it was mostly harassment in multiple venues. In BW defending was more economical than attacking (take out the talk about shooting up hill for a sec). That's why players in BW could set up a sim city defense and hold off early pressure, except in zvz lol. But, then again, macroing skill isn't as intensive as it was back in BW, so at least you could focus more in the battle in SC2.
|
On December 15 2010 11:48 Niji87 wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that BW didn't have defenders advantage like you probably think it did. It was a game that revolved heavily around being passive-aggressive and aggressive. End of story. No one wins BW by turtling without providing an overt threat. BW's "defenders advantage" only applied in the passive-aggressive state.
It was mostly the maps that allowed passive-aggressive play to be favored over purely aggressive play.
Are you serious? Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Of course you can't turtle and win, you can't do that in any RTS. It's obviously a greater advantage in SC1 over SC2 and the thread's not about aggressive or passive strategies, it's about the differences that made SC1 a more macro-oriented game.
I want 54.6% macro games, 30.1% cheese games, 1.4% worker rush games, 0.6% DT rush games and 100% games where zerg whines that their 14 hatch just got destroyed.
On December 15 2010 11:56 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:48 Niji87 wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that BW didn't have defenders advantage like you probably think it did. It was a game that revolved heavily around being passive-aggressive and aggressive. End of story. No one wins BW by turtling without providing an overt threat. BW's "defenders advantage" only applied in the passive-aggressive state.
Yeah, Sum Siege Tanks on Highground protected by mine fields were no defenders advantage. 2 Reaver surrounded by 3 cannons and a shield battery on a choke point was no defenders advantage and could kill like 15 hydras or more? Just 2 examples : |
This basically. And just to refute your argument that you can't turtle up and win,  Flash.
|
The reason why we aren't seeing macro games is because of the maps. Early BW there weren't that many macro games, and as the maps started changing (naturals started to have gas, more expansions, larger maps), we saw macro games.
|
On December 15 2010 11:16 Kennigit wrote:
Wtf are these arbitrary percentages...bad thread 0_0
Bad thread because of one post? Steer us in the proper direction......
I dont hate cheese games. Early rushes need to be a threat to greedy players. Also, I love games where it looks like a certain player will lose but they hold and it turns into a long back and forth battle. I think bigger maps are better for this.
|
On December 15 2010 11:56 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 11:48 Niji87 wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that BW didn't have defenders advantage like you probably think it did. It was a game that revolved heavily around being passive-aggressive and aggressive. End of story. No one wins BW by turtling without providing an overt threat. BW's "defenders advantage" only applied in the passive-aggressive state.
Yeah, Sum Siege Tanks on Highground protected by mine fields were no defenders advantage. 2 Reaver surrounded by 3 cannons and a shield battery on a choke point was no defenders advantage and could kill like 15 hydras or more? Just 2 examples : |
They are not good examples. Your opponent will expand and tech or mass up and take map control while you waste your money sitting in your base. The Reaver/Cannon/Battery example is absolutely horrible. That's like the most desperate thing you can possibly do and there's no reason for an opponent to attack you directly if you're that desperate to defend your choke. Reavers trapped at your choke defending are Reavers wasted.
In the case of Siege Tanks+Mines, they make a poor defense if you don't turn them into overt threats such as minefields on key map locations, contains, or slow pushes. Simply making a bunch of Tanks/Mines in your base will get you rolled by Muta or Carrier. It's your job to stop them from gettng Muta/Carrier or other such units.
When you use your abilities to generate overt threat you are not defending, you are being passive-aggressive. Taking an expansion is not a defensive move, for example. It's a passive-aggressive move. It threatens your opponent. Aggressive minefields and tank placement are not a defense meant to keep you from losing the lead, they are an offense meant to keep your opponent from being able to take the lead.
As for what made SC1 more macro oriented. It's simply the maps. It favored passive aggressive play more than aggressive play. I said this in my previous post.
EDIT: Flash does not just turtle up and win. Watch him play more. If he just turtled up and won, you'd see everyone doing it.
|
Honestly all I want are great games that don't revolve 4 min micro wars
|
I don't like the new highground mechanics either. After the early game the high ground advantage is very minor and positional play never revolves around high grounds. Having some chance in a game is not a bad thing either.
|
I like how SC2 rewards the ballsy agressive type of plays,
\
and I respect the cheese. theres so many delicious varieties, all of which are fun to watch IMO
there even fun to play against if you keep your eyes open, i love fighting off cannon contains with seige tanks or protecting one marine with 11 sCvs from some 7 or 8 pool attack, and if i lose, thats okay, i was outplayed, simple enough. especialy since a cheese can hurt the cheeser more than you if you keep your head up.
i love all the unique and crazy plays in SC, if we didnt have them the game would be far more boring, like halo wars. lol.
|
On December 15 2010 12:00 dcberkeley wrote:This basically. And just to refute your argument that you can't turtle up and win, Flash.
Umm... TvZ? Sorry, but we really need to stop making threads about how you don't like a few things, bring up BW, have tons of misinformation about BW come in, turn into a whine thread, etc.
As I said earlier, there are defensive advantages in SC2, they are just different. Forcefield, queens, and free bunkers. Lets learn to use those more.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
We get about 20 of these threads a month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
