EPTThere is little need to compare the two or suggest that one is superior to the other.
I feel Starcraft 2 is very passive. - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
There is little need to compare the two or suggest that one is superior to the other. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:18 Bagration wrote: I think the GSL finals between MMA and MVP was a series overall that showed the weakness of passive play. MVP mech style was generally considered more passive than, say MKP's bio, but was also more successful and consistent. However MMA essentially proved that bio was still very viable and in many ways superior to mech in TvT, even against the world's best mech player. That series was incredibly back and forth, with MMA making attacking everywhere, while MVP struggled to catch up. well... that is only one matchup | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
| ||
|
SolveN
Canada43 Posts
| ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
| ||
|
SkimGuy
Canada709 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:14 Resistentialism wrote: One big thing you notice in this game is that worker scouting isn't shut down at the 4 minute mark. I'd love to see that come back. Of course it isn't, how else would you scout for a hydra bust? xd Good players are notorious for keeping their scouting workers alive for a really long time, even sending out another one if they're unsure of their opponent's build. You rarely see this in SC2 which leads to it's coinflippy nature and passivity | ||
|
Warpath
Canada1242 Posts
People are just too scared to attack at a lot of the times, once the game gets played more, people will know when to, and not to, attack. Hopefully | ||
|
Ahaha
11 Posts
| ||
|
LatsyrC
Haiti76 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:23 MilesTeg wrote: It's a problem with Protoss, not the game. Every other matchup is fine to me, but the Protoss mechanics make it so it's good to just sit on a few bases and mass an army. The mass recall thing they have in mind for HotS is obviously overpowered if used defensively, but it could be interesting offensively. I think it should deplete the shield and mana of your army after use, to make sure you can't just expand everywhere and defend for free. have u test that in the custom map in wol? the radius of the recall is like the radius of the Warp Prism... so like 10units can be transported. and also the units take like 4seconds to get there.. | ||
|
Archile
United States403 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I LOVE CHESS | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10381 Posts
But another thing I haven't thought of is units costing more supply. The 6 supply units that each race has, for example. Though they are also bigger, so I guess the army size is still bigger. I think one culprit is simply units moving so close to each other unlike in BW. This causes armies to be in much closer proximity during battles so there's less of that constant back and forth that you saw in BW... they still have a little of that in SC2, but, for example, in TvZ, zerg can remax an army much much faster and lings are much much faster, so I don't feel that back and forth balance is quite like it was in BW. Maybe I just remember wrong. But anyways yes I think the game will become less passive as time goes by. Back in beta people just deathballed cus they didn't know what to do. SC2 has still been only out for 1 year. In a few years players should be much much better and therefore play at a level that the current top BW pros do. That + new/better maps will help a lot  I also wondered about why the food count is only 200/200, especially now that you need more workers. I felt the 200/200 in BW was fine, perhaps they preferred it differently. I mean it's not bad right now, but it's a bit different. Armies clump up faster and fights are over faster, and armies cover less ground, unlike in BW where there was more army and longer fights because it took longer for each unit to reach the frontlines, and you had a little more army supply. Meh all I know that it is getting better, so I will keep hoping that it will continue to keep getting better. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
the momentum needs to transition slower in sc2. | ||
Ver
United States2186 Posts
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. | ||
|
Jojo131
Brazil1631 Posts
 | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:32 LatsyrC wrote: have u test that in the custom map in wol? the radius of the recall is like the radius of the Warp Prism... so like 10units can be transported. and also the units take like 4seconds to get there.. No I haven't tested it. It doesn't make sense to even talk about the specifics yet, as it will all change. But the whole idea behind it is to facilitate pokes, and I think that's going in the right direction if they don't make it too powerful defensively and they make the deathball weaker. | ||
|
Selendis
Australia509 Posts
Passive vs aggressive play is really up to the players themselves. I honestly think that in sc2 you can be as aggressive as you want in any or all stages of the game, even the most turtled passive player cannot defend everywhere at once and even at the high levels of play players often don't split their army properly to deal with multipronged aggression. | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
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. ^ Everyone listen to this man. | ||
|
Raiznhell
Canada786 Posts
2) no unlimited unit selection. 3) a bit more ridiculousness. like in BW 2 tanks behind a wall would kill infinity dragoons if they tried to bust but in sc2 protoss wouldn't even notice the fact they are being shelled when they right click on the supply depot kill it walk through then click on the tanks one by one and then just win. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
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. absolutely in agreement, well said. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10381 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:50 Raiznhell wrote: 1) bigger maps, need a ton of HUGE maps 2) no unlimited unit selection. 3) a bit more ridiculousness. like in BW 2 tanks behind a wall would kill infinity dragoons if they tried to bust but in sc2 protoss wouldn't even notice the fact they are being shelled when they right click on the supply depot kill it walk through then click on the tanks one by one and then just win. Disagree, tanks can do quite a lot o.o I do think a limited unit selection would be good tho (they have one actually im pretty sure, like 160 units, but it could be smaller, not like BW of course, but where you need to think just a little, like maybe 64 or something lol) | ||
| ||
