On November 24 2011 02:19 Switchy wrote: Dustin Browder said SC2 is not broodwar, if you dont like it thats tough shit. These threads are pointless
Nobody wants SC2 to be BroodWar, I don't understand why individuals such as yourself don't let it sink in. People want certain aspects that make BroodWar a truly great game to be carried over to SC2, of course no one wants the same damn game. There are flaws in SC2 just like there are flaws in BW. SC2 can be improved a lot by carrying over some thing that made BW great, read Ver's post dammit, it's true. There is little in SC2 that can distinguish top players from another, the skill ceiling is quite low. Defense busting is too easy, positioning is about the only thing that can give you an advantage over another player (not in dirt/rocks leagues).
edit: removed a deserved insult
I don't get why so few people understand this either. I come from warcraft 3, NOT from BW and still I think that SC2 lacks dynamic - in warcraft 3 you at the very least had to constantly creep neutral camps and harass, in sc2 there are those times where the best thing you can do is just nothing at all (with "nothing" I mean producing probes, pylons, units).
Since SC2 has no heroes like warcraft 3, there HAS to be something to make it dynamic at each and every point in the game. BW had that gamedesign, that made constant harass/aggression a necessity. SC2 needs something similar, otherwise it will get boring. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not even in the next couple of years. But at some point it will, and then people will be quick to leave the sinking ship.
I agree it's more passive. I think the reason for that is that only one race has any decent early game harassment options, and two of the three races can easily tuck themselves behind walls until they're ready to move out.
All races can pressure early with an all-in sort of build; but really, that's a gamble. Who wants to risk losing a game on the off chance the opponent won't be prepared for your all-in.
I feel that Protoss and Zerg have no decent way to (harass early on) a base that has been walled up; the few options they do have are costly and high-risk. This is why they choose to macro up, and why Terran is compelled to pressure them - which, luckily for Terran, is one of their strengths.
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
On November 23 2011 23:40 sluggaslamoo wrote: I watched the whole vod, honestly if this is how much SC2 has developed its not that much different to how I remember it.
I really strongly believe that if you are someone who has to reminisce about what SC2 was like last time they bothered following it, you should not be on this particular subforum.
Do you want people in BW forums who don't know jack shit about it, telling everyone why it's so boring to them, and clearly inferior to SC2?
It's reasonable to think BW has something that SC2 has lost but I get annoyed when these threads devolve into rehashing the same points, sometimes contradicting each other. I mean, the most common complaints I see are:
1) SC2 doesn't have enough territory control - like Lurkers and Spider Mines, ways of completely closing areas off to attack until later tech.
2) SC2 is too passive - not enough multi-pronged attacks or harrassment.
But...more hard territory control would result in fewer attack possibilities...?
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS).
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1.
how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
Excellent post. I already wondered where this week's "BW is better than SC2 will ever be" thread was. Sadly, there seem to be a lot of people prejudiced against SC2 who feel the need to come to a SC2 forum bashing the forum's game (not saying this was true for all who agree with OP, but there are a lot of elitists who do just that).
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS).
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1.
how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
A actually disagree with his opinions. While I respect Plexa I find he often gets somewhat overly passionate about things and thus misses the point. I felt Ver was misconstrued many times and Plexa was using a strawman argument. "Fighting isnt just about position". Ver never said that, he said a lot of engagements come down to just positioning.
Honestly how often do you see a PvT or ZvP or ZvZ or PvP engagement, where the guy who makes an early engagement mistake can come out on top with superior post-engagement tactics/micro? This happens a lot in BW, see Flash/Savior get wittled down, down, down, thinking they're gonna lose and then suddenly, BOOM he suddenly makes out and the tables are completely turned.
The only one that comes to mind is marine vs banelings, oh forgot to seige your tanks? No problem, micro your marines like a fucking god and you can still come out on top. And you know what, that's what makes battles great and unpredictable. There's lots of dynamics like that in BW, hardly any apart from marines vs banelings in SC2.
I and others even SC2 only players have posted that SC2 is based on passive play, single brief engagements and pre-emptive decision making, sorry but this is a trend of SC2 that isn't in normal BW games no matter what people say (except maybe Flash's or Best's).
The only time this doesn't exist to the extreme in SC2 is in TvT and TvZ, but most people are not worried about that, those matchups for the most part are fine, there is still a lot of clumping and moving around the marine tank deathball with drops here and there but the overall dynamic we want exists.
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
Amazing read, really interesting and I felt kind of sad reading this, cause you nailed it so well.
I feel DB has alienated himself and "his" product from BW. Sometimes we talk about product ownership, and I sense that DB feel he owns SC2, and dont want to bring in BW to the mix cause that would give credit to something he did not create. In an interview TL had, I felt DB was a bit uneased about BW, like it was DB vs BW, you either play BW or my game(sc2). So have a bad feeling about the development of SC2, but hopefully he just wants to make a great game.
I think its mostly because of how many defensive spells and structures there are that dont cost much money at all and thats why zergs are the only ones who get attacked early because bunkers are refundable with only a 25 mineral loss and forcefields makes it impossible to get up ramps.
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS).
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1.
how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
Excellent post. I already wondered where this week's "BW is better than SC2 will ever be" thread was. Sadly, there seem to be a lot of people prejudiced against SC2 who feel the need to come to a SC2 forum bashing the forum's game (not saying this was true for all who agree with OP, but there are a lot of elitists who do just that).
Maybe so many people are saying it because they feel it's true. I don't know, man... I played BW like mad since the day it came out, for years and years. There's a big difference between SC2 and BW and I know a lot of people who think that SC2 lacks the tactical depth of BW. It always felt like you could do more with less in BW.
Granted, SC2 is very young. BW had a decade of tweaking to make it what it is, so I remain hopeful that SC2 will receive similar treatment. I thoroughly enjoy both games but I would add my name to the long list of people who think BW is superior in terms of execution.
On November 24 2011 02:33 JieXian wrote: And when I say SC2 is inferior. I mean it but not in an elitist or dismissive way, but, if you actually read what I posted without getting all hurt, as someone who wants SC2 to be better, to be the replacement so that everyone can enjoy something at the level (or even higher) of BW
"And when I say your wife is ugly, I mean it but not in an elitist or dismissive way, but as someone who wants her to look better".
Do you not understand that telling us that our game is inferior because it's not more like your game is insulting in and of itself?
SC2 has been out for over a year. It has a huge following and a vibrant pro scene. It is not meant to be Brood War HD, it's its own game, and you are not going to convince anyone at all by telling them the game they are passionate about is actually a boring failure.
Things will change in HotS, and some of those changes do seem to address some of the concerns people in this thread have, i.e. better space control and more incentives to move food out of main armies.
On November 23 2011 12:48 eSuBuildings wrote: Starcraft 2 is more like chess where late late game situations tend to become a matter of waiting and unit control rather than tactics.
Since when in chess is unit control and waiting more important than tactics?
I'd like to address something that Plexa and Ver have talked about. Positioning. This thread is about how SC2 seems passive compared to Broodwar, and I'm going to put myself on a limb and say that in SC2 positioning and formation are important, but not as game impacting as in Broodwar.
Positioning in Broodwar let armies that would die horribly in a straight up fight against the force brought against them trade evenly or win. Two early game examples are from mirror matches. 1 gate cy core nexus is a viable PvP build on certain maps with proper chokes at the natural. A good arc and distance allows 1 gate Dragoon production to defend 2 gate Dragoon production. Another example is a ling arc at the top of a ramp in ZvZ. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this in SC2 except for forcefield, which I'd really rather not start dissecting here.
A second thing is the lack of substantial terrain advantage. In BW, units on top of a hill could hold a superior force at all stages of the game, while high ground advantage basically disappears in the midgame of Starcraft 2.
I'm not saying that these are good or bad things. I just think that they are differences that contribute to players being less willing to split their armies and be aggressive in SC2. Despite all of the harass people have pointed out from Broodwar, top BW players were generally very conservative and safe players. This is reasonable, as progamers play to win. It logically follows that in Starcraft 2, where the game is less understood and the familiar defensive options that allowed inferior armies to defend successfully are gone, safe players would be more hesitant to split their army.
A good part of that is because of how much the surviving part of the victorious army changes on just a few units. It seems to function more as an exponential curve than a geometric one, so the difference between a close victory and a slaughter isn't that much, and if part of a player's army is harassing when they are attacked, would could have been an even trade can be a slaughter that the defender loses, and their harassing force is no threat to the enemy's remaining army. I don't think that this is a problem yet, because a good part of defending with a superior force relies on the maps, and SC2 map development is still young.
Even still, I think that Blizzard is doing a decent job of addressing this in Heart of the Swarm. Recall will allow Protoss to return harassing forces to their main army before the engagement, Shredders will give Terran a defensive option that functions extremely well for either delaying the enemy army or damaging a good part of it, and the Swarm Host and burrow-move banelings can make moving into a zerg base without detection a slow loss of units or instant death. The Viper will also provide the ability to hold superior forces while harass does more damage, more units produce, or the harassing force returns home.
I don't think it's perfect, but I do think that it's an improvement.
On November 23 2011 13:05 SkimGuy wrote: EsuBuildings xd I posted this like 3 months ago on Gamefaqs. Its basically because everyone is lazy and rather max out before doing any type of harassment. The game I used to demonstrate the amount of action that is possible in BW is game 1 of n.Die_soO vs JangBi in the OSL semis:
I bet you're unable to find that much action in any SC2 game xd
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
I hope everyone sees Ver's post about this. Very well said. If there was a feature to "recommend" or highlight certain posts in a thread, I would promote this to the top.
I think you're exactly right that Blizzard designed SC2 to be more oriented around offense for entertainment purposes, just like in the NFL, they are promoting passing more than defense with their rule changes. The idea being that offense is more exciting to your typical fan or esport viewer, who may not understand the subtleties of space control or defensive tactics.
I have a question for all the people who don't want to hear about BW. What should we compare SC2 to? Age of Empires? C&C? It's only natural to compare with the best there is and that's broodwar. Just ignoring a legend makes you an idiot.
I did not play a single game of BW since SC2 came out, but I am aware of how far SC2 is from what it can be. Only inexperienced kids can say SC2 is the best there is.
I am a huge fan of SC2 and i would never go back to broodwar, but this is just because SC2 is the future. But i think i have the right to hope for a better future.
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS).
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1.
how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
A actually disagree with his opinions. While I respect Plexa I find he often gets somewhat overly passionate about things and thus misses the point. I felt Ver was misconstrued many times and Plexa was using a strawman argument. "Fighting isnt just about position". Ver never said that, he said a lot of engagements come down to just positioning.
Honestly how often do you see a PvT or ZvP or ZvZ or PvP engagement, where the guy who makes an early engagement mistake can come out on top with superior post-engagement tactics/micro? This happens a lot in BW, see Flash/Savior get wittled down, down, down, thinking they're gonna lose and then suddenly, BOOM he suddenly makes out and the tables are completely turned.
The only one that comes to mind is marine vs banelings, oh forgot to seige your tanks? No problem, micro your marines like a fucking god and you can still come out on top. And you know what, that's what makes battles great and unpredictable. There's lots of dynamics like that in BW, hardly any apart from marines vs banelings in SC2.
I and others even SC2 only players have posted that SC2 is based on passive play, single brief engagements and pre-emptive decision making, sorry but this is a trend of SC2 that isn't in normal BW games no matter what people say (except maybe Flash's or Best's).
The only time this doesn't exist to the extreme in SC2 is in TvT and TvZ, but most people are not worried about that, those matchups for the most part are fine, there is still a lot of clumping and moving around the marine tank deathball with drops here and there but the overall dynamic we want exists.
Any matchup vs zerg requires specific timing pushes or prolong attacks to trim them down, or you will lose. Look at most recent top tier ZvP. Late game ZvP usually involves protoss successfully multi attack and fight at the correct position, or lose from being overpowered by zerg swarm.
tbh I don't see any point arguing with BW enthusiastic. Alot of them have their goggle on too tight and don't even follow both scene anyway. Because I seriously find this sc2 too passive to be laughable.
TvZ map controls continuously switch side depending on stage of the game. And any matchup vs zerg is a ticking timebomb in which passive play is not possible
On November 24 2011 02:33 JieXian wrote: And when I say SC2 is inferior. I mean it but not in an elitist or dismissive way, but, if you actually read what I posted without getting all hurt, as someone who wants SC2 to be better, to be the replacement so that everyone can enjoy something at the level (or even higher) of BW
"And when I say your wife is ugly, I mean it but not in an elitist or dismissive way, but as someone who wants her to look better".
Do you not understand that telling us that our game is inferior because it's not more like your game is insulting in and of itself?
SC2 has been out for over a year. It has a huge following and a vibrant pro scene. It is not meant to be Brood War HD, it's its own game, and you are not going to convince anyone at all by telling them the game they are passionate about is actually a boring failure.
Things will change in HotS, and some of those changes do seem to address some of the concerns people in this thread have, i.e. better space control and more incentives to move food out of main armies.
I feel like DB's "taking food out of the army approach" is a much too simple way to put it. Armies are too small already, with most units being above 1 supply apart from the marine and zergling. So already you are looking at armies that are half the size on screen and don't lend itself to more exciting drawn out battles and more complex micro. Now add in the behemoth 6 supply units and your armies are even smaller. Now Browder wants to have 2 supply units (I assume) that can't exist in the core army, so armies are going to be EVEN SMALLER.
The more subtle reason is defenders advantage. Give people a reason to move out without fear of base trading or instant loss, and squad based aggressive play will naturally follow.
As for space control, let me give you an example of the Swarm Host and Lurker. 2 Lurkers above a ramp can stop infinite (that's right infinite) amounts of marines, that is map control.
Now given 24 marines going to attack a third expansion, can we realistically believe Swarm Hosts can achieve even merely close to this?
Blizzard has hit a dilemma, because Swarm Hosts become extremely powerful offensively if the broodlings that spawn out of it are too powerful and Terran doesn't have irradiate. I think Swarm Hosts will go the way of the Brood Lord (nerf after nerf), and Swarm Hosts will cease to become a map control unit, and more of a gimmicky tank splash unit like the BroodLord.
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome.
Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro.
The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt.
I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised.
How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point.
Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS).
No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions.
Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1.
how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
A actually disagree with his opinions. While I respect Plexa I find he often gets somewhat overly passionate about things and thus misses the point. I felt Ver was misconstrued many times and Plexa was using a strawman argument. "Fighting isnt just about position". Ver never said that, he said a lot of engagements come down to just positioning.
Honestly how often do you see a PvT or ZvP or ZvZ or PvP engagement, where the guy who makes an early engagement mistake can come out on top with superior post-engagement tactics/micro? This happens a lot in BW, see Flash/Savior get wittled down, down, down, thinking they're gonna lose and then suddenly, BOOM he suddenly makes out and the tables are completely turned.
The only one that comes to mind is marine vs banelings, oh forgot to seige your tanks? No problem, micro your marines like a fucking god and you can still come out on top. And you know what, that's what makes battles great and unpredictable. There's lots of dynamics like that in BW, hardly any apart from marines vs banelings in SC2.
I and others even SC2 only players have posted that SC2 is based on passive play, single brief engagements and pre-emptive decision making, sorry but this is a trend of SC2 that isn't in normal BW games no matter what people say (except maybe Flash's or Best's).
The only time this doesn't exist to the extreme in SC2 is in TvT and TvZ, but most people are not worried about that, those matchups for the most part are fine, there is still a lot of clumping and moving around the marine tank deathball with drops here and there but the overall dynamic we want exists.
Any matchup vs zerg requires specific timing pushes or prolong attacks to trim them down, or you will lose. Look at most recent top tier ZvP. Late game ZvP usually involves protoss successfully multi attack and fight at the correct position, or lose from being overpowered by zerg swarm.
tbh I don't see any point arguing with BW enthusiastic. Alot of them have their goggle on too tight and don't even follow both scene anyway. Because I seriously find this sc2 too passive to be laughable.
TvZ map controls continuously switch side depending on stage of the game. And any matchup vs zerg is a ticking timebomb in which passive play is not possible
If you "honestly" don't think there's any point in arguing with a BW enthusiastic why post in the first place?
Also you criticize me for not following both scenes when you don't either? Combined I should have a better right to argue a point considering I played and watched a lot of both games.
The "ticking time bomb" concept of zerg matchups has existed since the inception of Starcraft e-sports, the first televised game featured a probe zealot pressure rush to prevent Zerg from being able to make drones and lose too many lings.
How about early pressure forcing Zerg to make too many Sunkens thus losing way too many drones, and then busting the front anyway with epic micro and timing, so Zerg doesn't have anything left?
I'm sorry but if you read the posts in this thread you would understand that there are plenty of SC2 only players who have refuted suggestions like Liquid`Hero's play saying its not normal (which is how also I used to play since beta in PvZ and could still take games of GM SEA players from time to time) is only really powerful because it is out of the norm. Much like how the pure Bisu build rarely used in PvZ anymore once Zerg knew how to defend it.
Sorry but ZvP has predominantly been a Roach/Ling/Infestor ball vs Collossus/Stalker ball matchup. I still watch SC2 from time to time, and always checkout Checks and others streams and attend barcrafts when I can. You simply can't understand without watching any proleague game from Bisu (especially) or Snow or Stork and see aggression for what it really is.
EPT
