EPTIn sc1 you could have multiple battles before a game is decided because of how much longer each battle took you could reinforce and recover your defenses. It also had more board control with lurkers, siege tanks, vulture mines, reavers/hts/cannons etc.
I feel Starcraft 2 is very passive. - Page 18
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
In sc1 you could have multiple battles before a game is decided because of how much longer each battle took you could reinforce and recover your defenses. It also had more board control with lurkers, siege tanks, vulture mines, reavers/hts/cannons etc. | ||
|
HellionDrop
281 Posts
| ||
|
ImGonnaRideYou
53 Posts
Blasphemy! We must all strive to play like we are pros! (No offense) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 24 2011 03:04 sleepingdog wrote: 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. yeah, I love that thing about starcraft2. You don't always have to be like: "I must attack now. Unit X has no attack command, so it is useless..." The pure presence of stuff makes already sense. No need to always ne on the attack. No need to always use 100apm on micro. More time to make good decisions. More time to play creative! | ||
|
Milvus
Switzerland400 Posts
| ||
|
castled
United States322 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:19 sluggaslamoo wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 23 2011 13:10 HuHEN wrote: I think this comes down in large part to skill level, I just dont think sc2 pros have learned to utilize agression to its full potential yet. That said, the game is clearly far more dynamic than it was in the eary days, and I think it will continue to progress and improve as players themselves improve and understand the game better. On November 23 2011 12:52 FragRaptor wrote: Little by little people are figuring out ways to poke at players. Until that research is completed people will be passive as the small pieces of aggression are not effective enough. But do not be mistaken it will come in time(And expansions). Again this is not a matter of time, its inherent in the game design. Even the worst players on ICCUP have more action packed games than the highest level ladder players in SC2. The time horse has been beaten to death.  When you can just look at the game design and see how it's not possible. The reason TvZ is so developed is that it has Tanks, its a lot like TvP in BW. Where T is always jostling for position and point capture, while P is trying to look for opportunities to exploit Terran weaknesses. Similar applies to TvT, this is why Zerg and Protoss need strong immobile slow-shot siege units (Reaver, Lurker), it creates much better battle dynamics.On November 23 2011 13:12 Nizzy wrote: 1. Bigger maps, bigger maps, bigger maps, bigger maps. Stuff like twice the size of metalopolis. A map like Tal darim alter should be one of the smallest maps out there. This way 'ball armies' will simply fail, because you can only hit one part of their base, while if they hit you at multiple locations at once you'll probably lose. Because of big maps you would bring back the seige/perimeter lines. You would have zergs placing burrow banelings in areas to block off paths/swarm hosts for this as well. Warp gate for Protoss would be great here for them to warp into any base to protect it. The game would be so much better. 2. Take away the mass multi section of units. You don't have to limit it to 12 like in BW, however everything is in one big ball/ 1-3 control groups only. Maybe cap it at like 24-32 units or something. Units/armies would be WAY harder to control if you had to use like 6 hotkeys for a 200/200 army. It would put more skill back into the game. Way more IMO. Being able to select all of your units in 1 control group is so noob-ish. Even bad players might even agree to that. 3. Like TT1 kind of said in his post. The less casting units the better. Take away that stupid "get over here" thing from the viper. Less spells actually = more action. Having just 2-3 total spells per race actually makes them more exciting. TT1 also said each race having few spells to support the army, even though they're strong. They won't be as strong with armies separated around the map instead of a big ball. Dumb Dustin Browder fails to realize. Sorry I'm calling him dumb, it's just I feel a sense of ignorance with his logic of 'this is the game I made, not the game you want' Dustin, we don't want these changes because it will be like BW. We want these changes because it will make the game a better RTS. It's already not like BW. The units are so much more fast paced IMO. He said he's looking at ways to split those balls up. Start with those basic ones. His method for splitting those balls up doesn't make any sense though. Hes just trying to make gimmicky units that don't work well within the main army. There is a fundamental problem to this, the core armies are going to become even SMALLER. In BW the core army looked HUGE, you would just look at an army like that on the minimap in absolute awe, and this is partly due to the huge supply units in SC2. A 200/200 bio ball in BW had a roughly 160 unit blob moving around the map, SC2 is less than half of this. The second problem is it is the wrong way to tackle the issue. The problem is not synergy of the colossus or MMM or anything like that, its lack of units that benefit hugely from tactical situations. A zerg army with 1 defiler is 10x stronger than one without, you don't see that from the infestor. A lurker in a choke is 10x more powerful than in the open, this is not the same for the baneling. In fact the only thing close to this is split marines and tanks. On October 31 2011 17:24 sluggaslamoo wrote: 1225 (7 lurker gas cost) / 25 (baneling gas cost) = 49 I think its even more sad that if you could actually micro 11 marines and 1 medivac to kill 49 banelings, 20 zerglings, a Hatchery and an Evo Chamber, there would be mass screams of imba and Blizzard would never let it happen. T_T Although at the same time other races had equal opportunities to gain huge advantages by exploiting weaknesses in small battles. Of course to have situations like the above, Blizzard would need to remove auto-clumping. I think this is the biggest issue that needs to be resolved, players are too scared to engage each other because armies are almost 100% efficient at all stages of the game. If you removed clumping, players would be more inclined to be opportunistic and engage when the other player has moved out of position. The second point I need to make about this is that de-clumping won't cause dragoon AI problems. Remember Warcraft III pathing? That used a very similar algorithm to Broodwar, its just that it wasn't a 13 year old game and pathfinding had gotten better since then. I wanted to highlight this post from the end of the first page again. I never followed or played BW in a competitive way but when I watch BW games now it's clear to see why SC2 games have less small skirmishes. Armies are too condensed in SC2 so, in conjunction with less microable units (moving shot issue), engaging even a slightly larger force with a detachment from your army is never advisable. This leads to less interesting games because players just wait for their balls to grow to 200/200 before attacking. You might say that there are drops in SC2 and other harassment options. The difference is that in SC2 your harass is really only effective when you're catching the other player entirely out of position or if your army is already stronger. It's too difficult to engage a section of the opponent's main army and come out ahead because the army is too condensed. I liked that the quoted post mentioned the WC3 engine. Even though there were way less units on the field in WC3, the engine did a good job at making battles spread out in a way that made them epic. I think it would be interesting to see what SC2 would be like if the collision interactions between units was more like WC3. I remember in WC3 you could completely stop a unit from moving by surrounding it with 4 units in the cardinal directions. In SC2, I believe a unit would simply "squeeze" out of this kind of surround. It's very strange that units in SC2 have smaller collision boxes while they're moving, which ends up making them as close together as possible when they stop moving. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 24 2011 04:12 castled wrote: I wanted to highlight this post from the end of the first page again. I never followed or played BW in a competitive way but when I watch BW games now it's clear to see why SC2 games have less small skirmishes. Armies are too condensed in SC2 so, in conjunction with less microable units (moving shot issue), engaging even a slightly larger force with a detachment from your army is never advisable. This leads to less interesting games because players just wait for their balls to grow to 200/200 before attacking. You might say that there are drops in SC2 and other harassment options. The difference is that in SC2 your harass is really only effective when you're catching the other player entirely out of position or if your army is already stronger. It's too difficult to engage a section of the opponent's main army and come out ahead because the army is too condensed. I liked that the quoted post mentioned the WC3 engine. Even though there were way less units on the field in WC3, the engine did a good job at making battles spread out in a way that made them epic. I think it would be interesting to see what SC2 would be like if the collision interactions between units was more like WC3. I remember in WC3 you could completely stop a unit from moving by surrounding it with 4 units in the cardinal directions. In SC2, I believe a unit would simply "squeeze" out of this kind of surround. It's very strange that units in SC2 have smaller collision boxes while they're moving, which ends up making them as close together as possible when they stop moving. Not just WC3, BW had the same dynamic. SC2 collision boxes for the staple units (non-gimmick like thors) are so tiny that it's difficult to trap them. Some of the most interesting micro in both BW and WC3 involved trapping units so they weren't able to retreat. A huge part of the problem is how condensed units can be. It made ranged units in huge balls too powerful, especially with Blizzard nerfing AOE units and abilities to compensate. The 1A 200/200 ball is really something they should try to solve in HOTS. It's too powerful compared to the alternatives. Moving collision detection and spacing back to BW/WC3 levels would be a good start. Another thing they need to took at is supply. For all their talk about how SC2 is not BW, it's curious that they kept the 200 supply max from BW even though the new worker economy and unit supply costs demand a higher supply limit. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
| ||
|
thOr6136
Slovenia1775 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 24 2011 04:28 intrigue wrote: ^ i was looking for the thread where that guy increased collision size in all units, but i couldn't find it. i remember thinking it was quite cool and liking it a lot. I remember that one. The armies actually looked like what you would expect. Mass marines in SC2 currently move like a bacteria colony instead of individual units. | ||
|
Glockateer
United States254 Posts
Certain things like warp gate and forcefields should be removed and units buffed elsewhere. Fungal growth shouldn't 100% stop a unit, especially with the "zerg disruption web" they want to add in HotS. Units hopefully will be adjusted for a little more micro ability room to shoot and move more effectively. Terran shredders with tanks will help in defenders advantage just like the new underground broodlord of zerg but protoss don't seem to get anything in that regard in HotS. Maybe they think forcefields are good enough? Also, the tempest is a bit of a joke compared to the carrier but that is a different discussion. | ||
|
Escape
Canada306 Posts
| ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
Clumping imo, is what causes most of these problems. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On November 24 2011 05:13 Escape wrote: Just a thought, would decreasing the overall attack damage or increasing the overall unit health increase the length of battles? which would allow more time to micro and to reinforce? It would, but there would be side effects on stuff like raiding, attacking bases, etc. For example, if you just straight up decrease damage, raiding becomes universally less effective (except for the oracle, which would become more effective), as players would have more time to run their workers and/or send units to clean up raids. Similarly, increasing HP would make worker raids worse (see above) but would make base raids more effective, as raiding units would die slower while the buildings' durability wouldn't have changed, unless you increase building health, too, but would change the balance of base trades, probably.... It's a bit of a mess. Also keep in mind that changing units in any way other than attack delay changes the number of hits to kill, such as +1 zealots or roaches vs zerglings. Furthermore, I'm not 100% on this, but I think increasing unit durability in any fashion either of us mentioned would function as a direct buff to Zerglings against Marines except certain situations where the Marines are crammed into a corner, because less Zerglings would die in the approach and less overall time would be spent by Zerglings moving forward to replace a Zergling that died. | ||
|
Vasher_Pwnzer
United States21 Posts
Overall, good post! | ||
|
Baum
Germany1010 Posts
| ||
|
eSuBuildings
United States71 Posts
As a Zerg, do you know how hard it is to harass a base with let's say 16 lings as opposed to 8 marines? Equal in supply and mineral cost but harassing with lings is so much very inefficient. The same goes for 4 zealots vs 16 lings. I know that I shouldn't be crying imbalance, but this just goes to show. In the PvZ match up, Protoss can death ball to no end and remain completely defended against small back stabs due to imbalance between army values. I'm talking about army at that very moment, so don't argue back with remaxing. Zerg can't harass a base with a small strike force because it will fail easily due to ease of defense for the Protoss. If you even think about trying to add more units to harass that base, your army is that much weaker and the Protoss will have no problem walking right up to your base and end the game right there. As many people have pointed out in this thread so far. We need more position holding units and such. Glad to see the feedback on this thread though. | ||
|
Baum
Germany1010 Posts
On November 24 2011 07:11 eSuBuildings wrote: Okay to clear up a few things, I think I may have poorly worded the title to this thread. There are a lot of people making their arguments in here that I believe haven't read the initial post and are blindly arguing. They are talking as if I said the game entirely is passive. I'm talking about the late stages of the game. As a Zerg, do you know how hard it is to harass a base with let's say 16 lings as opposed to 8 marines? Equal in supply and mineral cost but harassing with lings is so much very inefficient. The same goes for 4 zealots vs 16 lings. I know that I shouldn't be crying imbalance, but this just goes to show. In the PvZ match up, Protoss can death ball to no end and remain completely defended against small back stabs due to imbalance between army values. I'm talking about army at that very moment, so don't argue back with remaxing. Zerg can't harass a base with a small strike force because it will fail easily due to ease of defense for the Protoss. If you even think about trying to add more units to harass that base, your army is that much weaker and the Protoss will have no problem walking right up to your base and end the game right there. As many people have pointed out in this thread so far. We need more position holding units and such. Glad to see the feedback on this thread though. That's why Zergs like Stephano have started using Spines to prevent the Protoss from just a moving into the Zerg base. Sure you can't shut down the whole map like this but it's very effective to shut down the main attack paths. Also Mutas have proven to be very effective against passive robo play all game long. I don't see a reason why aggression should stop in the late game. Just like at any other point in the game aggression can turn the tide in this phase of the game gaining either positional or economic advantages. | ||
|
ajabberwok
United States59 Posts
On November 23 2011 19:55 hkese wrote: This is the difference between SC2 and SC1. Where do you see the excitement in SC2? I'm not sure what anyone was supposed to get out of those two example videos. Of all the many games in all the many tournaments, can I ask why you picked the video you did for the sc2 example? Here is a recent example I would have picked where hellions are used extensively throughout the game: MVP vs Leenock at MLG Providence http://tv.majorleaguegaming.com/videos/79589-clsf-qimmvp-vs-fxoleenock-game-1 + Show Spoiler + By the end of the game MVP had 70-some workers of Leenock's and still lost. Many of the games from MLG Anaheim featured terran players from the SlayerS team using blue-flame hellions extensively to kill workers, harass and buffer their tanks. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On November 24 2011 06:10 Vasher_Pwnzer wrote: I think you would be more correct a couple months ago, but after IPL 3 and Providence I'm starting to think this game is become very aggressive late game. For example, IdrA vs Nestea was some of the scariest ZvZ we've all seen to this date. Also at IPL3: Origins, game 2 Kiwikaki vs Stephano was some of the most amazing games i've seen. The game is passive late game for sure compared to brood war, but overall this game is still young. Though I think we are all improving decently fast. Overall, good post! The game is becoming very aggressive overal. Because of time constraints I only watch big live tournaments like MLG and Dreamhack and I have to say that the level of play increases with each passing tournament. A year ago, the builds pros were doing were rather straightforward and easy to copy, and pro games were rather boring. Nowadays, however, I find the build orders to be really complicated with little room for error. It's not something a platinum-level player like me can pull off without seriously putting himself at risk. Hell, most platinum level players aren't even able to scout properly so the chance of getting all-in'd is rather high. | ||
| ||
