EPTThat, I belive is something that might change. Dustin already said they wanted units (atleast for protoss) that are efficient away from the army. (Shredder may be one of these too by philosophical side, no1 knows how it's going to be used 2month after release).
I feel Starcraft 2 is very passive. - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Ryndika
1489 Posts
That, I belive is something that might change. Dustin already said they wanted units (atleast for protoss) that are efficient away from the army. (Shredder may be one of these too by philosophical side, no1 knows how it's going to be used 2month after release). | ||
|
Zeroxk
Norway1244 Posts
On November 23 2011 16:42 sevia wrote: Control groups got bigger and unit density got higher, resulting in 'deathball vs. deathball' being the most standard type of SC2 game, even at the pro level. Along with improved pathing that allows units to pack way more tightly than they did in BW, we have units like colossi and medivacs which greatly add to army power without taking up space. The end result of this is that any time you divide your army on the map, there's a huge risk that your opponent will simply ball up every combat unit he has and crush his way through your base with incredible efficiency. This was possible in BW, but not as easy, and having smaller control groups encouraged squad-based gameplay over the 'deathball.' I imagine that if the 12-unit limit was enforced in SC2, the game would overall become a lot more active. Just my 2¢. It's easy to point fingers at engine mechanics but no one forces you to play with 1 army hotkey or even MBS, it's just the easy way. Also if for example you have 1/3 of your army off killing an expo why shouldn't his full army be allowed to take out your 2/3 army (given similar army sizes)? | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
One of the reasons I like Stephano so much is his harassment based style. Instead of being defensive and turtle up to 200 supply he is always putting pressure on to his opponent. He plays a relative safe game and instead of being greedy like we see most players are atm, he makes units and go to his opponent to punish greed. When you see Stephano play he always goes to his opponent asking his opponent " Do you have the defensive meassures too defend this expo?" And a lot of times they dont, he gets in lots of economic damage and wins the game there with taking a massive lead. I believe the game is going this way more and more. When the game first came out everything was about 1 base all-in, people learned how to defend and then the game went too very greedy, economic based, games. Now it is becoming more that players dont react too greed by being more greedy but by being safe and punishing the greed, creating more action through the game. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
There you go. Stork vs Nada from the 2007 proleague. I didn't really pick this game at random, as I chose it because the calibre of the players illustrates that SC1 can be just as boring as SC2 at the highest level. It's really easy to dig up examples =/ | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
1. Less "Brood War was better" rhetoric. 2. Less "SC2 is 1a vs 1a" hyperbole. The former just serves as flamebait, and the latter is just demonstrably wrong. The only matchup that almost always degenerates into 1a vs 1a is ZvZ, although even then it's never quite so cut and dry. Think of the Idra vs Nestea G1 at MLG Providence. After early game ling/bling wars, and midgame muta harass/defense, the climax ended up being roach/hydra ball vs roach ball in Nestea's natural. But the reason Idra won that was that he got a creep highway with ovies with the opponent having mutas on the map. Same goes for the "players are punished for putting food into forces outside their main army" argument. Well, yes. As well they should. There should be risk involved in devoting some of your army to harass or economic damage. The only argument I partially agree with is the TT1 "casters are too strong" one. I think the only caster that's in the right place right now is the High Templar. Sentries and ghosts are too strong for too little investment. Infestors are just too versatile. I wouldn't mind seeing gateway units re-balanced around fewer forcefields, and EMP doing far less shield damage. But these are minor complaints, and I could quite possibly be wrong about all of this in 6 months when the metagame has evolved to deal with these things. | ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
On November 23 2011 16:55 Zeroxk wrote: It's easy to point fingers at engine mechanics but no one forces you to play with 1 army hotkey or even MBS, it's just the easy way. Also if for example you have 1/3 of your army off killing an expo why shouldn't his full army be allowed to take out your 2/3 army (given similar army sizes)? Because position should matter. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
In addition, other benefits of position have also been reduced; in particular high ground means a LOT less than it used to. The result has been the inability to hold a position without having equal or greater supply than your opponent. This was critical in the creation of brood war harass: you could turtle while dropping or hold the middle of the map even with minimal sieged tanks. Essentially, defenders constantly had the advantage in the truest sense. Even if you were not at your base, the static player tended to have an advantage. Also: People have been complaining about the choice of games. Very well. I have chosen, at random, games from the TL Nevake channel. The following is Ganzi vs Frozen, two very mediocre BW pros. A few dynamics I noticed: without Mules, people scout more; there's no other reason to have a comsat, and a comsat is a pretty small investment. Promotion of scouting creates more open information. This makes it easier to be reactive, and thus more easy to harass overall. Second, sieges feel like sieges. Well positioned tanks were just harder to break. Third, cloaked air units with no detection were not the end of the game. Surprise cloaked wraiths were pretty minimally effective. The most relevant is the second. Even in this low level TvT, it is really apparent the power of position and the reduced power of totally surprise strats. edit: worth noting: despite all the possibility people say BW lends to a comeback, one player is clearly losing for the entire game...and then loses. | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
| ||
|
Larsa23
United States21 Posts
What if you want to make a porn collection in starcraft 2 maps. If I want to make something extremely disgusting I cant and that takes a bit of the fun out or if I make something awesome and have to worry about the content or something gay. I thought a lot of the fun of SC1 was the lack of moderation aside from spam bots. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 23 2011 17:00 DamageControL wrote: Basically, Ver is right. The reduction of position advantage (i.e. Sieged Tanks, Lurkers, Reavers) have led to the demise of tactics in favor of macro balls rolling into each other. I must be watching a different Starcraft 2 than you are. I spent all weekend watching MLG, and I can't for the life of me remember any macro balls rolling into each other. | ||
|
Arush
Canada80 Posts
| ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On November 23 2011 17:03 yeint wrote: I must be watching a different Starcraft 2 than you are. I spent all weekend watching MLG, and I can't for the life of me remember any macro balls rolling into each other. Perhaps it is a fallacy to say that SC2 does not have a lot of position jockeying; it definitely does, and some of Leenock vs Nani really demonstrated it. But there are few advantages to the "entrenched" player which leads to the inability to divert resources for fear of just being rolled over. Yes, there are counter examples. And yes there are examples of boring BW games. But overally, I think this is why people tend to see the game as one main army vs another main army. edit: I might be wrong in calling them "macro balls", but I watched a lot of Army vs Another Army. edit: @Arush, I don't think the micro in sc2 is bad, actually. In fact, I think it's pretty damn good, at the highest level. 'That's not really the problem people see. | ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
| ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On November 23 2011 16:42 Larsa23 wrote: I was easily D+. When I was probably at my best I was beating D people and D- like they were nothing. I would purposely play sloppy vs the D- at one point. I was D+ it would have taken a bit but it's not like D+ is harder than beating D and D-. Problem solved. It's not like it takes much except really good efficiency and basic knowledge which I have. By the way you didn't ask me against who. Most of those losses were on fish server vs koreans who had the entire map by the time I attacked or hackers on USEast. I know exactly when people are hacking? Why? I was a pretty avid one myself just not in 1v1. Vs D- kids I used to just get an army and win. There were pvps where I just a clicked and won. The max I did was drop reavers behind my dragoons. In ZvP all it takes is a good defense and a flank from behind and the protoss cant do anything. You then dodge the storms and when their army is overwhelmed and cant retreat because you burrowed lurkers behind all my shit and by the time my units get back to base they are mostly gone you just send all your ultralisks that were waiting at 9 o clock when I attacked 11 o clock and all the lings you had hatching at the time and I am dead. Happened to me a lot. There were also the times when they just had a much superior game play to mine and when I'd attack they wouldn't even need their entire army to steam roll mine and then just attack. The fact that armies are harder to kill you'd think would make it easier to just do attacks because in SC1 there are a lot of situations where you can't afford to lose what you have and when that happens you are done. So like in SC2 I thought that it was because you could just have a really strong army and send some men to harrass but I guess the battles take a million years and so it actually matters or something even though I could see ways of sending reinforcements with a pylon. I just made the mistake of thinking that since they are stronger armies you would have an easier time sacrificing. Because in SC1 if you're terran and you lose everything you're fucked too and the same for protoss most of the time like in PVT and PVP I PVZ'd with bongmicro and only lost due to a strategic mistake because he was a lot better and I was being cautious. I also had a really hard time recovering in PVT when I would make an attack and get raped by terran tank lines and then he would just come over and steam roll me. It was actually when I was passive with a 12 nexus that I did good enough to just throw away units until they gave in. I am not that great at micro unless it's all I focus on so that's why I wouldn't try it with zerg. Zerg has a huge advantage if you know how to flank all over the place and macro better. I think that psi storm is basically useless unless you're really good or defending anyway. I saw most people just lose their templars or kill practically nothing regularly when I played BW. In PvP once I was behind unless they didn't attack I was also screwed when I would retreat and they would just follow me all the way home and then it was domination. Because they would be macroing just as hard as me except they wouldn't be worried about retreating and having to recover enough forces to match the enemy. Got owned a lot that way too. I bet if they increased the production rate of units and made them easier to kill sc2 would be better for sacrificing units whenever. In SC1 people didn't even play Terran because of how easy they were to kill. They would turtle the whole time and I think that if they made everything weaker in SC2 it would be just like that but then it would have to develop a lot over about 10 years. Why not make maps and remove them. Sc1 or broodwar , because on the korean level terran is really strong and not easy to kill at all, who would want to turtle all the time ? If i did that the zergs,protoss will take multi expansions like no tomorrow and steam roll me -_- , besides high templar psi storm useless ? Dropping a few of them on a zerg expo's and watch them melt to psi storms , I think from your standard , it's mostly Low D not even a D+ on iccup , Rarely Do i see people messed up their high templars storm unless they are really bad at predicting zerg's attack movement . When I think of psi storm , I think of  JangBi and for you to call it useless , it's unacceptable .Basing on the bolded parts of your statement , so just because you can warp in units from pylon makes it more easy to reinforce huh ? If i want to reinforce my units , I would rally all my factories to the designated area simple as that no need fancy pylon warping mechanics ,.Other than that the only time , Terran usually die is in a TvP where they get out of position and they are on two base without a third , if they have a third and so , they can turtle to kingdom come and protoss can't do anything except if they have carriers and ground army ,plus high templars to storm the hell at the tank line . | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote: 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.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. 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. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
On November 23 2011 12:51 CHOMPMannER wrote: Just play Terran, problem solved.  User was warned for this post That's what I came in to say. I disagree with the warning. 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). Its the same basic idea as the above poster. You can also play aggressive with Zerg successfully, but its less "standard" than it is with Terran. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On November 23 2011 16:59 Plexa wrote: <embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1540187220819592210&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed> There you go. Stork vs Nada from the 2007 proleague. I didn't really pick this game at random, as I chose it because the calibre of the players illustrates that SC1 can be just as boring as SC2 at the highest level. It's really easy to dig up examples =/ I don't really see the point of this though. Aren't we talking about general tendencies in games? I go to barcrafts sometimes, and they are interesting (Random SC2). However I can just open up a BW stream (even from some random C+ player) and find it exciting for the most part. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On November 23 2011 17:00 DamageControL wrote: Basically, Ver is right. The reduction of position advantage (i.e. Sieged Tanks, Lurkers, Reavers) have led to the demise of tactics in favor of macro balls rolling into each other. In addition, other benefits of position have also been reduced; in particular high ground means a LOT less than it used to. The result has been the inability to hold a position without having equal or greater supply than your opponent. This was critical in the creation of brood war harass: you could turtle while dropping or hold the middle of the map even with minimal sieged tanks. Essentially, defenders constantly had the advantage in the truest sense. Even if you were not at your base, the static player tended to have an advantage. Also: People have been complaining about the choice of games. Very well. I have chosen, at random, games from the TL Nevake channel. The following is Ganzi vs Frozen, two very mediocre BW pros. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6vKFmzaIo A few dynamics I noticed: without Mules, people scout more; there's no other reason to have a comsat, and a comsat is a pretty small investment. Promotion of scouting creates more open information. This makes it easier to be reactive, and thus more easy to harass overall. Second, sieges feel like sieges. Well positioned tanks were just harder to break. Third, cloaked air units with no detection were not the end of the game. Surprise cloaked wraiths were pretty minimally effective. The most relevant is the second. Even in this low level TvT, it is really apparent the power of position and the reduced power of totally surprise strats. edit: worth noting: despite all the possibility people say BW lends to a comeback, one player is clearly losing for the entire game...and then loses. When I think about bw come back , first thing that comes up to me was these game , What leta did was brilliant and suddenly counter attacking flash although flash had the advantage at the point , Flash defence started to fall apart from that amazing attack, So even though it's a high level game that doesn't mean the game is already figured out and if my move units to x,y,z the player auto wins . There's tons of dynamic game to watch if only you look for them . It's weird that you pick games that are like in the 2009 huh ? | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 23 2011 17:08 DamageControL wrote: Perhaps it is a fallacy to say that SC2 does not have a lot of position jockeying; it definitely does, and some of Leenock vs Nani really demonstrated it. But there are few advantages to the "entrenched" player which leads to the inability to divert resources for fear of just being rolled over. And I personally think that makes for more entertaining games. The one matchup where "entrenchment" is often rewarded is TvT, and it often leads to boring stalemates. Aside from the pretty lightshow at the end, Boxer vs Rain was just amazingly dull. I don't think it's true that there's an inability to divert resources. Good players will find the timings and the resources, and they will drop/do runbys. Even in deathball vs deathball we've seen innovation, like Kiwikaki using a mothership to turn his deathball into highly mobile attack force. At any rate, it looks like you'll get your wish in HotS, as Terran/Zerg get more space control and Protoss will get recall in every single game. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
| ||
| ||
