|
[SC2B] Drone and the Art of Defence
March 29th, 2010 13:13 GMT
Welcome back for a second round of Starcraft – Then and Now. As with my previous article, the focus here will be on comparing the Starcraft 2 beta with Brood War at its different stages of development. However, whereas the previous article was occupied with the overall feel and development of the games, I will, from now on, focus on specific aspects of the games: similarities, differences, flaws that need to be corrected, flaws that we forgot were part of Brood War, and some common misconceptions about Brood War and Starcraft 2.
Let me start off by giving you guys a mini history lesson: One of the most interesting articles I read during the first year of Brood War was an article written by one of the terribly old-school players from the IN-clan (it might have been Lameking). I've been trying to find it as a reference, but it’s been a good 10 years since I read this, and unfortunately I am unable to give the proper props where they are due.
This article dealt with the different phases Brood War had undergone at the time. Essentially, it dealt with how certain strategies and build orders had particular momentum at certain periods – and how you could often secure a win by going back two phases at a time because it allowed you to exploit predictable tendencies. Terran vs Zerg was specifically a matchup where, for the first 4-5-6 years, Zerg players always had to think about what strategy had momentum before they placed any buildings: if gameplay was at a stage where BBS was particularly common, Zerg wanted to pool before hatch, if it was at a stage where tech builds experienced particular fruition, Zerg players wanted to expand first. To add to this, it was not only limited to the first few buildings – if a Zerg scouted a walled off Terran, he’d then have to make an educated guess, largely dependent on what was the current trend was, as to whether the Terran was going wraiths, a fast drop (m&m or cliffed tanks), 3 rax rine with +1, or whatever.
This was, to differing degrees, the case for all matchups for a long time, until players became competent enough to comfortably fast expand with a build that could survive everything, every game. Some liked thinking of the opening as some sort of coin flip or rock-paper-scissors mechanic; I personally preferred thinking of it as a game of “levels” (to borrow a poker term), where you’d be thinking “I know he knows I know what he’s gonna do so therefore he’s not gonna do what I know he’s doing. Or maybe..” and well, it was terribly exciting.
I stopped playing Brood War for a couple years at around 2004. After I became a top player again, one of the key differences I noticed, in addition to not being allowed to pick random anymore (something which might be connected), was that the "levels" aspect of the game was much less important, especially for the matchups I ended up playing. What surprised me about the change was that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Brood War became a better game when the guessing was diminished. This is not to say that making educated guesses was not still a big part of the game, it was, but you were unlikely to lose the game instantly if you made a bad guess.
The development of Starcraft 2, as with everything else, is much faster than that of Brood War. The early phases of Brood War that I mentioned at the beginning of the article each lasted for months at a time. In the Starcraft 2 beta, it seems like all matchups have already gone through multiple stages, and while some of it is due to patching, most of it is due to a generally higher level of player and much more interaction between players.
With this said, and this is the key point I would like to make, I am not sure that Starcraft 2 can achieve the same dynamic that Brood War had in its best 4 matchups during the last couple of years. This is a lofty goal and hardly one I feel justified in demanding, but there are a couple aspects of sc2 that makes me believe reaching the same dynamic will be difficult - and these are topics that will be visited shortly. Read on ahead as we talk about scouting and the lessened viability of defensive play.
Scouting is Everything
In Brood War, Protoss vs Zerg used to be plagued by Protoss players not having a good way to scout. In fact, for a long period of time, a lot of Protoss players rushed for corsairs from one gas because getting a corsair out was the only way to keep them from playing completely blind. Interestingly, this strategy became completely useless with time, and only after fast expand builds were popularized years later did it became good again.
In Starcraft 2, multiple methods of recon were added, but they all come with a severe penalty. You want to scan your opponent? Well you are paying close to 250 minerals for it each time. You can’t scout much early game PvZ unless you open with zealots, because a probe gets killed by two zerglings without speed. A situation where Protoss is forced to open with zealots is not necessarily a bad thing, so there might be hope for PvZ. Even if Protoss ends up being forced to go fast robo for observers in PvZ, this will not necessarily break the matchup – Protoss has had to go fast obs against Terran ever since wall-ins were created.
With regards to scouting, ZvZ is the worst by far. In Brood War, ZvZ was referred to as the rock-paper-scissor matchup because of build-order determined luck. This occurred even though it had the longest uninterrupted period of scouting, because the initial build orders had to be chosen before scouting could be done. In Starcraft 2, while the early game build orders seem to be of less importance (in particular because zerglings are less dangerous in small numbers), there is a long window where no scouting whatsoever can be undertaken, which forces both players to make pretty blind guesses with regard to economy. Now, in Zerg vs Zerg the strategy isn't much of an issue at all - both players will build roaches. If they both establish expansions, one or both players might also add hydralisks to his force. But the economy is of extreme importance, and this was sort of, the saving grace of ZvZ in BW: You always knew how many drones your opponent had, thus it was always possible to make the correct adjustments. In SC2, you don't even know if the guy has 16 or 24 drones, meaning that you will be playing blind with regards to whether expanding, attempting an all out attack or making slightly more drones than him is the correct choice. The current problem where you can only build roaches, and eventually hydralisks, is significantly less of a concern than the lack of scouting, and in fact, if more strategies become viable, then it becomes even more important to fix the scouting problem. If we compare it to Brood War, we can see that the zvz matchup doesn't require more than two buildable units to work out (unless we actually have higher demands for sc2 than we do for bw - personally I'm quite content with an equally good game.  ). Of course, I also hope they make non-roach builds a viable option, and it seems like has Blizzard tried to do this with their previous patch, but it is secondary to the problem of early game scouting.
TvT is currently the matchup where I have had the most success beating players better than me. The main reason is that I have done the same thing as them, I just haven’t scouted, and the extra 200+ minerals I get from not using a comsat has shown itself valuable enough to allow me to win. ZvZ is a matchup where there’s no viable way of scouting your opponent between his pool going up and your lair having been around for a while – that’s actually going to be even more problematic if the roach opening isn’t something used by default. PvZ seems to have a similar problem, although not more than it did for the majority of Brood War.
This is naturally a more apparent issue for mirror matchups than it is for the other matchups, as mirrors are often decided by very slight differences in builds. In a Zerg vs Terran game, it isn’t obvious that the Terran lost because he lacked 5 marines in one key battle because he scanned once instead of using a mule, you can always point to a multitude of other reasons for why he lost: better unit combinations, delayed upgrades, etc... But in a Zerg vs Zerg game you most definitely can tell if one player has three roaches more when the armies clash, and you can see why it happened (because that player built 3 drones more at an earlier stage).
The balancing is not even close to done yet, not by Blizzard and not by the players, and we have gotten so far already. Some units seemed completely imbalanced initially, but people have either devised clever ways of countering them, or they've just gotten the timings down. Either way, unit balance is happening, and will continue to happen as long as players continue to play the beta. Complaining about balance at the moment is useful, us complaining about balance is in fact part of why there is a beta and why we are not instead playing the released game at the moment. Expecting the game to be balanced at this stage is just not realistic at all. There are however aspects that really need to be in place for the evolution of balance and possible strategies to fully take place, and scouting is one of these aspects.
Defence Should Be Crucial
Now, as I have stated, scouting itself is not necessarily in worse shape than it was in BW. Zergs would often have to make the decision as to whether they wanted to sacrifice an overlord to find out which route terran was taking. Protoss players would often hide probes pretty early so they'd be able to scout zerg after the zergling containment made it impossible to leave his natural - causing quite the loss of mining time. In for example PvT, I have certainly not felt like I was playing blind. The real problem arises when the problematic scouting is combined with a real sc2 problem, and one aspect where the game needs to be more like its precursor: Defense is weakened.
There have been a multitude of threads and articles dedicated to discussing whether the high ground advantage needs to be reinstated, and I am not going to revisit that topic . (Other than to state that I agree with the point of view that having units randomly miss either 25% or 33% when firing at units on higher ground seems like the best way of going about it.) The lack of a real high ground advantage is far from the only example of defense being weakened though... Units in Sc2 generally deal more damage faster than they did in BW. Additionally, it is in most matchups easier to get many units fast than what the case is for BW. Units also generally have slightly more hit-points. Yet static defense remains quite unchanged, it certainly has not been buffed significantly, and several buildings, like the defensively important supply depots, in fact have less HP than they did in bw.
"We cannot hold!" would happen a lot less if static defence was slightly stronger.
In addition, there are multiple ways of jumping across cliffs, walking distances are generally shorter (although this is also map dependant), and protoss in particular is capable of reinforcing right before they attack. This aspect of the game can also be defended - wanting a game with higher pace, awarding attacking, wanting to avoid the eventual development of TvP in BW where terrans could play games without attacking until they reached supply limit. But when defense is worsened, attacking becomes better and scouting becomes harder, you practically ensure that certain matchups will evolve into different semi-cheesy build orders. In TvP in BW, it was quite common to see protoss try to do some sort of semi-allin, be it two proxy gates to break the choke, dt drops, proxy reaver, attacking with 5-8 goons and a shuttle with zealots. Terran would generally be easily able to defend either of these if they committed to defending them and they'd generally lose instantly if they ignored it completely (especially the case with DT drops), and very often you got closely fought battles where one part arrived barely on top. This was exciting.
However when you add warpgates into this equation and shuttles become able to constantly reinforce, high ground stops giving an advantage and static defense (apart from the massive planetary fortress) is comparably crappy, this won't be possible. In SC2, both players need to constantly have enough units to defend against an attack at any given moment, because no units are much better at defense than attack, terrain bonuses are significantly smaller, and even the time-advantage the defender enjoyed in BW is partially removed. This promotes a style of play where players want to build enough units to attack at a particular moment, rather than in BW, where players could also opt for defending for a certain period of time to allow themselves to either reach a level of tech or economy that would grant them a huge advantage at a later point.
To reiterate the point from my previous article: Brood War and the balance we enjoyed in it did not happen overnight, it was a fluid process of constant adjustment based on any number of different changes in gameplay. What Blizzard has given us to work with is a far more complete product than we were given 12 years ago. However, certain aspects need to be in place for a successful competitive game to grow. One of these essential aspects is that there has to be a decent amount of viable strategies to avoid staleness and award creativity, and just as important as viable strategies is that there are enough potential reconnaissance options to allow a player to counter the myriad of possible strategies. Forcing players to guess, and most likely to guess incorrectly, leads to players blindly countering each other in ways that make for a thoroughly unentertaining game. This is exactly why the dynamic that eventually evolved in Starcraft was so great – a worse player could certainly win games by exploiting holes in his opponents scouting, but it was impossible to consistently do this: To consistently win games, you had to be the more complete player.
In most ways, I feel that Starcraft 2 is on the right track, the only matchup which is broken scouting-wise at the moment is Zerg vs Zerg. But scouting has to be considered consciously in the following patches; there are goals that are more important than making all races win equally such as windows without recon not being open for too long, and not scouting being too attractive an option. In addition, defense desperately needs to be strenghened. If neither scouting is made easier nor defense becomes more viable, it is inevitable that all-in-strategies will become the dominant form of play, rather than them being useful but occasional tools to keep an opponent honest, and this would significantly reduce Starcraft 2's chances at being a competitive game with a longevity rivalling BW.
|
|
|
Braavos36372 Posts
Nice article!
Agree on a lot of points, especially ZvZ, that mu single handedly makes me not like playing Zerg.
I also think static D needs to be buffed and high ground needs to be changed.
|
good read completely agree with static defence being a bit weak... the destructible rocks on blistering sands for example also don't help the cause, but i guess thats more just because of the map.
|
Why can't you just drop a changeling in the zergs base? Will the queen auto attack it?
|
yeah nice points there. but i dont agree with the zerg has not so good scouts. they have not so good "point scouts", that can scout what the enemy is doing in his base, but he has a big advantage in covering the whole map. having cheap fast zerglings and overlords spread across the map is a huge advantage.
zvz suckts totaly at the moment and is very boring to watch, i guess to play too.
|
Very interesting read, thanks!
I'm gonna remain optimistic that Blizzard is keeping an eye on this site, hopefully they can absorb some of your worldly RTS wisdom Drone. :D
The development of Starcraft 2, as with everything else, is much faster than that of Brood War. The early phases of Brood War that I mentioned at the beginning of the article each lasted for months at a time. In the Starcraft 2 beta, it seems like all matchups have already gone through multiple stages, and while some of it is due to patching, most of it is due to a generally higher level of player and much more interaction between players.
This made me sad (on purely selfish reasons). I don't have beta, but I was really looking forward to playing a game where nearly everything is still undiscovered, where the timings and optimal build orders are still generally unknown. The rate all you guys are developing I wonder whether there'll be anything left to discover by the time it's released! 
|
Even if i haven't played SC2 (as i don't have key) but i can base my opinion on the streams i watched. I actually agree with you 100% as the option "Defend or Attack?"(connected with not very good static defence) should be in every strategic game. Now i find this game as a counter/hard counter one e.g. Immortals are good against armored units but on the other hand they are weak to mass light units and it makes this game much less entertaining. In Starcraft 1 you could play like sick strategies which actually might work and here(SC II) ofcourse there will evolve some strategie but you are not possible to think of too many while there is not much possibilities. In starcraft 1 you could e.g. as a Protoss fast expand against Zerg as you had quite strong cannons at the beginning and cannons in starcraft 2 are too weak(to give example, immortal(imba unit :D joke) kills them in 2-3 shots?
|
Good read, I've noticed the exact same thing in TvT.
|
Nice writeup! Is blizzard going to come out with an eventual expansion with new units for sc2, like they did with broodwar?
|
nice article was enjoyable to read. never really thought static deffence was underpowered, seams that everytime one pops the other army runs away O_o
|
|
|
This is a very good article, so true that static defense needs to be worked on, not even made stronger maybe more hp or something. Anyways good read and well written.
|
please enlighten me...what about that "Hello, Artosis!" reference?
|
About the ZvZ: i suppose the scout problem can be solved in two ways:
1)remove queen air attack
2)slowing down zergling without leg upgrade (it would make possible to scout with worker witout being alwas killed)
|
Great article, but I disagree somewhat with your assessment of ZvZ. It's not impossible to scout... just difficult. If you keep your initial overlord around the perimeter of his base, you should be able to do a quick peek at things without being sniped by the queen, on most maps. Zerg tend to put their buildings along the edge of the creep or behind their mineral line, which makes it all the easier to spot.
Also, I disagree that roach is the only viable ZvZ tactic, and in fact, I exploit the fact that so many Zerg players believe this. Now, I'm not high level (I play in the top of my Gold division, but certainly don't feel like I'm a Platinum player), but I think I have a good overall feel for the game.
A strategy that some might call a bit cheesy, but which I employ with great success, is fast teching to mutas and avoiding ground altogether during Tier 1. I throw down between 3-5 spine crawlers depending on the pressure the enemy puts on me. Usually by the time they have actually started hitting with roaches, it's too late for them to realize that I have mutas on the way to their base.
At my level, I have lost almost no ZvZ with this tactic. The only time I feel a strong challenge in ZvZ is when my enemy either goes Mutas himself, which results in an intense micro battle and war of attrition, or when he successfully scouts with his overlord and sees that I am going mutas. If they have even one spore crawler waiting by the time my mutas come, I have little chance of doing much damage. Even if they throw up spore crawlers though, I'll be able to keep them contained long enough to switch into hydras/roaches myself and go forward with a standard game. Most opponents overreact to the first batch of mutas and start to go heavy anti air and stay holed up in their base, which further adds to my advantage.
I'm really interested to see how ZvZ play evolves over time...
|
Good read, as to be expected from TL.
On March 29 2010 22:57 LuDwig- wrote:
About the ZvZ: i suppose the scout problem can be solved in two ways:
1)remove queen air attack
2)slowing down zergling without leg upgrade (it would make possible to scout with worker witout being alwas killed)
1. That would remove early zerg air defense and move ZvZ scouting back to BW times, lair tech + building for air defense. Plus in SC2 zergs don't rush Hydras in the same way they did with mutas in bw.
2. That would hurt zerglings a lot versus normal units though. A better solution would be something like moving the bonus speed on creep to lair tech. (Not an actual tech itself, it just becomes activated when your lair finishes.)
|
ZvZ has evolved recently into a speedling heavy style.
Fast exp into speedlings. Forcing your opponent to be defensive if he opted for roaches (thus playing even more blind than roach vs roach).
Lots of ppl are now stuck with speedlings vs speedlings and think this new variation is equally boring to the roach vs roach one. But there are subtle variations to these openings that might make ZvZ interesting (i.e. defensive baneling opening vs speedling assaults).
But due to the queen you're still playing a blind game. Although it's much more back and forth with the speedling style, allowing for constant aggression, and a better overall "outlook" on what your opponent is doing. Basically: it provides a way of keeping your opponent honest.
|
Interesting thoughts and critique of the current game state. I guess I don't quite follow the logic of being unable to scout however. In all of the high level games I have watched be it the recent invitational or the zotac cups it seems people have no problem scouting each other unless they flat out fail to by forgetting. More than likely I must be missing something when I watch these games rather than the article being wrong so I will keep an eye out for that as more high level tournie replay/vods are put out.
Regarding defense its hard to say right now, gameplay is all over the place. Can you hard turtle and win? TLO did against nazgul, even using tanks which everyone lately says are pointless units. I see toss doing wallins with cannons quite often also. Zerg seem to be the only race that has no other option than to defend via harass and basically cant turtle but that seems fitting for their racial playstyle. If high ground is more pointless in sc2 why do we see so much choke play? Why are certain expansions much better to get than others?
It is developing fast and these are things to definitely think about. I'm not questioning the article so much as questioning what I thought I have been seeing in the games played so far. I will definitely be paying more attention to these things going forward. Thanks for the thought provoking article
|
Good read! I had noticed the static defense issue but not the scouting one (vods/streams; no key T.T). Thanks for the article.
Apart from raising the atk/armor/def power of defensive structures, what suggestions are you making for changes?
Also, I didn't see a clear identifiable problem raised for sc2 scouting, other than saying there is a problem. (did I not see it?) Could you be more specific about the issue and your recommendations?
|
On March 29 2010 22:54 TurboT wrote:
please enlighten me...what about that "Hello, Artosis!" reference?
It's an inside joke here at TL. Artosis used to play Terran in SC1 and hated DTs. He rages so much when he loses to them.
I agree about static defence and high ground. I don't know why Blizzard is clinging so much to their version of high ground advantage. It's getting criticized left and right. The miss chance was good, because you had to evaluate the risk/reward of attacking uphill. Now it's: early game "lol can't fight back cliffing units because there is no vision." and later on "lol highground, we have equal footing because now I have air units to spot cliffs". No good.
Static defence is so weak now, because so many units deal bonus damage to armoured units. They either need to buff attack speed and damage, or make buildings not be "armoured" and have more hit points, or a combination of them.
About ZvZ I dunno much about, but I'll take your word for it, that it is broken without being able to scout, but everyone has trouble scouting Z now.
|
Have any of you guys tried the awesome ZvZ strat which is mass ling->bane ling-> ling/muta. Bane lings are to come by the time the opponent can mass up 12 lings and are even more effective than they were before the last patch. You are to make a couple every once in a while during the game along with other lings. You gradually transition into mutalisks. I learned this just from watching 1 vod of it and it destroys roaches because they group together in balls a LOT. I think I saw the vod somewhere on either HD starcraft's youtube channel or Husky's.
|
Awesome read! Static D really needs to be toughened up, especially for Z in particular. Cannons and turrets are already beastly, and bunkers can be salvaged 100% although they die a bit too quickly sometimes. Give the ability to change Spines to Spores and vice-versa!
Zerg really needs some dedicated anti-armor though to counter Roaches. Wonder if making Banelings do +damage to Armored instead of to Light would change things (too imba maybe lol).
|
All defensive Terran buildings have +1 defense and you can upgrade them to +3. That's why depots have lower HP than in BW. Makes sense to me, especially since you now can burrow them.
Also I don't think anyone needs to be concerned that everyone will know everything about the game when it's released. New strategies will always emerge. The game will constantly change, even though we know much more about RTS today.
Great article, Drone is in a league of his own when it's about writing.
|
excellent read drone!! FE worthy imho
|
I've felt the exact same thing regarding ZvZ in SC2.. scouting drone count is near impossible, meaning you cannot punish somebody for just deciding to randomly build 5 drones because they're bad.
|
The more people think out of the box, the bigger the box will get so I'm not too concerned. The whole concept of what is "viable" and what isn't I think is really stopping people from thinking out of the box.
|
The scouting issue in PvZ isn't nearly as critical in the current state of SC2 as it is in BW. Protoss's early game is relatively much stronger in SC2 against Zerg than in it is SC1. In other words, zealots/stalkers/sentries do much better against lings/roaches/banelings than zealots/dragoons do against ling/hydra. As a protoss player, I usually am not too concerned if I'm playing blind against the zerg during the early game, because I know that zealots/sentries/stalkers (mostly zealots/sentries) can deal with most any opening that I might see from the zerg, whether it be speedlings, roaches, a fast expand, or quick tech to hydras/mutas. This also makes it much easier to deny the zerg map control in SC2 than in SC1.
|
I agree with it all. High ground advantage should have the vision aspect of SC2B and the miss chance of BW. If they changed this, i'd be happy as a clam even with static defenses being kinda weak, cause cannons up a ramp would own pretty hard, especially with one sentry and an observer to limit ramp access+vision. Also bunkers+ghosts, crawler+spore+infestor, all these unit/building compositions would make for much more effective high ground defenses that people simply can't implement now because they have to constantly attack and defend with one giant blob army, maybe two if you're flanking.
|
About the ZvZ: i suppose the scout problem can be solved in two ways:
1)remove queen air attack
2)slowing down zergling without leg upgrade (it would make possible to scout with worker witout being alwas killed)
That would also make zerg completely unviable against either Protoss or Terran.
The answer is going to be somewhere in the middle. A combination of a subtle softening of hard counters, and/or buffing of static defense, and players learning to deal against all in timing attacks.
Note: next section is only referencing z v p because that seems to be cheesiest matchup right now. I am Platinum Devision 3 Zerg I'll repost this is strat section as well.
As a zerg player against protoss pretty much every game is about dealing against an all in semi-cheese build. Either you pick the right one or you loose. However, I have a theory that there is a static two base build that could work against most anything v toss (on a 4 player map). It goes something like this. Yet to perfect this so please try variations and let me know what you think.
14 pool to Fe on 17 (no queen) (allows you to be able to afford immediate lings/sunken yes i still call them that) at natural if getting 10 gate zealot rushed)
pump lings drones get speedlings off 2 gas to star (add on gas as drone count allows) 3 queens Very important to counter Void ray or pheonix rush and to be able to expand creep withought sacrificing energy also can heal each other while fighting off void ray or pheonix.
Most toss still roach counter with a nasty immortal/stalker/sentry or immortal/zealot/sentry timing attack. Speedlings do acceptionally well against this combo with either a few roach or banelings mixed in. Most of the time you can have some muta's popped by this point too. Always use pincher/suround attacks forcing toss between ur static defense and units. while not as effective you can still use sim city to your advantage.
In most cases if you survive the attack its gg if you re and pump/rally to toss base. If not then continue to up grades while taking map controll expanding creep...avoid direct confrontation with sentry heavy army. engage/snipe and run until macro mode/grades are just too much and overrun him.
Give it a try, let me know how it works for you.
Note: I know every moment of the build is not spelled out, most of it assumes you know what you are doing. Please don't just flame response but have something usefull to say and say it nicely. Just because i didn't cover something directly doesn't mean it hasn't been thought of in the build. I assume you'll be scouting at least enough to have a general idea how to adapt etc...the build should allow for a relatively safe FE, with more options/resources to counter toss as necessary.
Edit: almost forgot! Nice article! was very well thought out and enjoyable read.
|
great article, I agree with most of it.
I certainly think scouting and static defenses need to be better.
|
spine crawlers really suck, but i think bunker is really strong already with its fast building time, and canons turrets, spores seem strong enough too
|
On March 30 2010 00:16 Innovation wrote:
Most toss still roach counter with a nasty immortal/stalker/sentry or immortal/zealot/sentry timing attack. Speedlings do acceptionally well against this combo with either a few roach or banelings mixed in. Most of the time you can have some muta's popped by this point too. Always use pincher/suround attacks forcing toss between ur static defense and units. while not as effective you can still use sim city to your advantage.
In most cases if you survive the attack its gg if you re and pump/rally to toss base. If not then continue to up grades while taking map controll expanding creep...avoid direct confrontation with sentry heavy army. engage/snipe and run until macro mode/grades are just too much and overrun him.
Maybe I'm off-base, but I've found that zerg have a very difficult time defending the immortal/zealot/sentry timing attack, particularly when they early expand. I time the attack to when I have +1 weapons done and 2 immortals out. My force is very zealot heavy with 5-6 sentries in support. Roaches and lings get dropped very quickly, particularly if I place my forcefields well. Zerg that go mutas will usually have their first 4-6 popping out right as I attack, which never have been enough to prevent either severe economic damage or outright defeat. Hydras seem to fair better, but I don't have enough experience against FE => hydra builds to really comment.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
Nicely written article by one of the greatest RTS minds ever!
<3 Eri
Edit: (Liquid`)Drone and the Art of Defence... intrigueing in the one or other way isn't it?
|
On March 30 2010 00:31 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Nicely written article by one of the greatest RTS minds ever!
<3 Eri
Edit: (Liquid`)Drone and the Art of Defence... intrigueing in the one or other way isn't it?
totally agree with this.
|
Nice read, well constructed argument and deductions.... except I don't agree with most arguments at all in the first place.
I am relatively new in BW, and Static defense there seems just as weak as static defense in SC2. Good SimCity and timings is what made them strong in BW, and I see this starting to happen in SC2 already (Spine Crawlers vs Hellions, Bunkers everywhere since they're salvageable, well placed cannons (see Nazgul's FE build on Blistering Sands vs Z), Spine Crawlers to deny early harass (sometimes double queen > she's so slow it is almost static defense) and then later repositionned to stop "cliff spotters" later on, and of course turrets and PFs).
Scouting is harder, yes. But this is the only thing that is making "fast air" builds any worth. Now, defense is weaker? Not quite. Only in the lack of "thou shall not pass" units like Lurkers, Mines and Reavers, and even that is arguable.
Of course defense will get better in time, this, and timings are what gets better as time passes in any game.
|
I really liked the read. I wish I was around for BW longer, and could relate to some of the changes you talked about.
|
very nice article but i disagree in over 80%
sry man !
its good not to have just static defense everywhere so u cant just make exp 5 cans SAVE u must ALWAYS look ur exp for harrass (see hasuobs vs insomnia)
also cans are not as weak as u seems to find them they are pretty nice vs mutas in small numbers (come on in bw 50 muta also destroy cans in 2sek) and also are super good for early expand pvp pvz so i must disagree here (also sunkens are rly rly nice when queens heals them ! damn i lost so many vs that shitt when i attack)
so sry but i cant agree with u ^^
also alot t lost because they are to greedy and mule without scan anytime and lost to carrier etc ^^
|
On March 29 2010 22:57 LuDwig- wrote:
About the ZvZ: i suppose the scout problem can be solved in two ways:
1)remove queen air attack
2)slowing down zergling without leg upgrade (it would make possible to scout with worker witout being alwas killed)
queen air attack is the only defense against void ray rush. Maybe have it research as an early upgrade might be better than having it taken completely out.
|
Great article. I totally agree that scouting a Zerg needs to be easier; I would happily lose my Queen AA attack. Zerglings without speed need to be slower than workers off creep too.
I don't agree that defensive advantage needs to be changed, I think larger and better constructed maps would solve that problem by itself.
Imagine all BW being played on LT, that's the sort of map level we are currently at.
|
i haven`t found one point where i wouldn`t agree. I`m especially happy that you mentioned the shorter distances. Sure i have seen some cool SC2 matches - but the big majority of games goes like this: Defend and mass 1or2 unittypes as hard as you can (sometimes harras a little) and the enter a huge fight. whoever wins that wins the match. Even if the fight took place at the defenders base, he will just run to the other guys base and finish him. The only Map where this doesn`t apply is Metalopolis on cross position.
|
On March 29 2010 23:48 Teugeus wrote:
The more people think out of the box, the bigger the box will get so I'm not too concerned. The whole concept of what is "viable" and what isn't I think is really stopping people from thinking out of the box.
I agree, people just need to learn when to scout, when and how to expand in a safe way, learn proper counters and get used to the new units. You just got used to fast expanding too much.
I also can't think of any situation in early game in BW where high ground gives advantage, please give me some? Like the only situation I can think of is PvT but even here it doesn't matter at all, there's just pure micro (as ramps are basically high ground) and awaiting for the first Tank to pop out <- people don't use static defenses but unit counters and everything is fine?
|
|
|
Isn't it 'defense' ? Am I crazy or does everyone misspell it? (good article btw!)
|
On March 30 2010 01:04 0neder wrote:
Isn't it 'defense' ? Am I crazy or does everyone misspell it? (good article btw!)
Defence is the UK way of spelling it.
|
On March 29 2010 23:03 muzzy wrote:
Great article, but I disagree somewhat with your assessment of ZvZ. It's not impossible to scout... just difficult. If you keep your initial overlord around the perimeter of his base, you should be able to do a quick peek at things without being sniped by the queen, on most maps. Zerg tend to put their buildings along the edge of the creep or behind their mineral line, which makes it all the easier to spot.
Also, I disagree that roach is the only viable ZvZ tactic, and in fact, I exploit the fact that so many Zerg players believe this. Now, I'm not high level (I play in the top of my Gold division, but certainly don't feel like I'm a Platinum player), but I think I have a good overall feel for the game.
A strategy that some might call a bit cheesy, but which I employ with great success, is fast teching to mutas and avoiding ground altogether during Tier 1. I throw down between 3-5 spine crawlers depending on the pressure the enemy puts on me. Usually by the time they have actually started hitting with roaches, it's too late for them to realize that I have mutas on the way to their base.
At my level, I have lost almost no ZvZ with this tactic. The only time I feel a strong challenge in ZvZ is when my enemy either goes Mutas himself, which results in an intense micro battle and war of attrition, or when he successfully scouts with his overlord and sees that I am going mutas. If they have even one spore crawler waiting by the time my mutas come, I have little chance of doing much damage. Even if they throw up spore crawlers though, I'll be able to keep them contained long enough to switch into hydras/roaches myself and go forward with a standard game. Most opponents overreact to the first batch of mutas and start to go heavy anti air and stay holed up in their base, which further adds to my advantage.
I'm really interested to see how ZvZ play evolves over time...
I'm also playing in gold league, and I also almost never loose in ZvZ, and I NEVER go muta. If you go no ground units, I will know that you fast tech, I will pressure you with Roaches and going Lair asap my queen pop, with 4 hydras and my queen your muta are totally useless.
|
United States7166 Posts
sweet I was going to write a thread about static D and defenders needing to have some sort of advantage, or to have more defensive units.
Dustin Browder has said before in an interview how they don't want static defenses to be able to hold off attacks/pushes, they just want it protect vs harassment. I think they have the wrong idea, perhaps they're thinking about the typical BW newbie who would just mass a bunch of cannons/sunkens and turtle and did not like that kind of play, and felt that static defenses shouldn't be able to hold off attacks. But everyone knows a player who invests in too much static defenses will be severely behind and the opponent can just take the rest of the map without concern and power-economy really hard. They really made it way too weak and it causes some major issues.
right now units are too equal in terms of attack/defense, with the exception to the siege tanks which is why, combined with walling-off and primarily ranged units, along with planetary fortresses they're the race most suited for being able to defend and hold positions. but with many readily available units that are much stronger versus buildings, increased army production, high mobility/terrain bypassing of units, lack of strong defensive (but harder/weaker to attack) units like the lurker/reaver, and no high ground penalties, the defender gets almost no advantages and is forced to just have a strong enough army to stop attacks.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 29 2010 22:23 Hot_Bid wrote:
Nice article!
Agree on a lot of points, especially ZvZ, that mu single handedly makes me not like playing Zerg.
I also think static D needs to be buffed and high ground needs to be changed.
I've always wondered what effect AMM has on this. In BW if you don't like one matchup, your choices are to dodge or race pick and it doesn't necessarily effect your overall race choice. But when a system is giving you players to play against and neither of those are viable, it makes me wonder if it skews the number of people picking that race. I've known people through the years who have switched races in WC3 because of it so surely it has some impact.
Great article! Agree on every point. I feel like the high ground issue is huge.
|
I loved the article great read!
I was wondering though if you had any specific improvements you would suggest? Like, "increase _____ of ______." Like if you were blizzard, what changes would you suggest? You'd want changes to increase the viability of defense without unbalancing any of the matchups. Do you think just a hp buff on all defense structures is good? Or damage increases to cannons/spine crawlers? What would you do if you could do anything right now (even if it needs tweaking later)
It's more for my own curiosity than anything else, as I don't have the beta.
|
On March 30 2010 00:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 00:16 Innovation wrote:
Most toss still roach counter with a nasty immortal/stalker/sentry or immortal/zealot/sentry timing attack. Speedlings do acceptionally well against this combo with either a few roach or banelings mixed in. Most of the time you can have some muta's popped by this point too. Always use pincher/suround attacks forcing toss between ur static defense and units. while not as effective you can still use sim city to your advantage.
In most cases if you survive the attack its gg if you re and pump/rally to toss base. If not then continue to up grades while taking map controll expanding creep...avoid direct confrontation with sentry heavy army. engage/snipe and run until macro mode/grades are just too much and overrun him.
Maybe I'm off-base, but I've found that zerg have a very difficult time defending the immortal/zealot/sentry timing attack, particularly when they early expand. I time the attack to when I have +1 weapons done and 2 immortals out. My force is very zealot heavy with 5-6 sentries in support. Roaches and lings get dropped very quickly, particularly if I place my forcefields well. Zerg that go mutas will usually have their first 4-6 popping out right as I attack, which never have been enough to prevent either severe economic damage or outright defeat. Hydras seem to fair better, but I don't have enough experience against FE => hydra builds to really comment.
Against Toss, the FE or not may depend on the map. On small map it's harder to contain the timing attack immortal/zealot/sentry. I usually do roaches to hydra, and can pop few hydra by the time is attacking which is enought to stop this units compo, and I expand then.
|
Great article (even though I actually liked the previous one even more due to the hilarious stories from the very first patches of SCI with invincible drones e.g :D)!
Regarding the high ground advantage: doesnt this also limit mapmaking alot? This might have been discussed before but there are really no big difference with a map with a ramp to high ground than to a map with a narrow choke. This - i believe - will limit the diversity of mapping in SCII,
|
Great read!
I definitely get your point about static defenses and a smaller, defensive army in order to save resources for tech that we saw so much in broodwar being downright impossible in SC2 (unless a terran can get tanks on cliffs). There does need to be some change where a player can actively chose to have a smaller army with a few defenses and be safe, but give up any ability to attack.
|
Blizzard still seems deathly afraid of anything resembling static defense approaching WC3 levels, even though BW clearly had the most balanced static defense you could imagine. Granted, WC3 static defense was one of the largest annoyances out there. However, with the numbers of units we're talking about in SC2, it shouldn't be hard.
What really gets me about defense right now is trying to hold off any early harassment/rushes with 45hp vulnerable SCVs and slow building marines. It's just an exercise in futility, and I'm dreading the first few minutes against good players (even when it's just a probe annoying my rax-building SCV endlessly) more than any other.
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
Good article!
I really enjoyed ZvZ in BW just because of the micro-intensive battles, but now it's just devolved into something even more basic. Of course, that's saying I want SC2 to be a copy of SCBW.
We're still early in the Beta now, so let's see how things get changed before the actual game comes up.
|
On March 29 2010 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
This promotes a style of play where players want to build enough units to attack at a particular moment, rather than in BW, where players could also opt for defending for a certain period of time to allow themselves to either reach a level of tech or economy that would grant them a huge advantage at a later point.
This is probably the thing I've noticed more than anything else while watching streams. I really hope it gets fixed before release; you've certainly done a nice job of cataloguing all the different features of sc2 that lead to it.
|
On March 30 2010 01:04 0neder wrote:
Isn't it 'defense' ? Am I crazy or does everyone misspell it? (good article btw!)
You Americans like to spell many words differently then the rest of the English speaking world.
|
On March 29 2010 23:12 Xith wrote:Good read, as to be expected from TL. Show nested quote +On March 29 2010 22:57 LuDwig- wrote:
About the ZvZ: i suppose the scout problem can be solved in two ways:
1)remove queen air attack
2)slowing down zergling without leg upgrade (it would make possible to scout with worker witout being alwas killed) 1. That would remove early zerg air defense and move ZvZ scouting back to BW times, lair tech + building for air defense. Plus in SC2 zergs don't rush Hydras in the same way they did with mutas in bw. 2. That would hurt zerglings a lot versus normal units though. A better solution would be something like moving the bonus speed on creep to lair tech. (Not an actual tech itself, it just becomes activated when your lair finishes.)
orrr they could just move hydras back to tier 1 and take queens ability to attack air away .
|
On March 29 2010 22:34 Senx wrote:
Why can't you just drop a changeling in the zergs base? Will the queen auto attack it?
No, he means scouting before lair goes up.
|
Love the corsiar scoutting in BW.
|
I agree, scouting is EVERYTHING. As I play more and more games, I have to say that superior scouting allows for me to make the best possible units to counter my opponent.
And yes... ZvZ is definitly annoying with queens being a very early and effective anti-air. Ovies can't even get near to mineral like on some maps like metalopolis.
|
I can see I'm a minority here but the more I think about it the less I get importance of high ground mechanics - with exceptions of maps like Heartbreak I've never got a feeling it mattered as much as metagame. Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO.
So speaking of it, where exactly do defences fail to deliver, in what MUs after which openings, when? Are you sure unit mixes you use are the best in situations you have in my mind?
For example it disturbed me that 2 days ago Strelok tried to win TvZ simply by making and A-moving 2 types of units, making just a single drop in his broadcasted games.
Is a person who tries to do that a true betatester or just a casual expecting things to work instead of thinking and experimenting what works and how should it be used to work properly?
|
United States3748 Posts
|
Can't ZvZ players make an Overseer and scout?
Personally, I think defensive play is something that will develop in time. It will of course be significantly different than SCBW defensive play, but whatever. From what I see, the T>Z>P>T balance has been formed in the opposite direction-- but with the added benefit that certain timing attacks from the defensive player can crush an unsuspecting offense.
|
Nice read.
Speedling in ZvZ has been full of fail since day 1. Try this: Banelings (and Roaches) vs Zerglings.
|
Norway28575 Posts
On March 30 2010 04:48 RetroDeatRow wrote:
Can't ZvZ players make an Overseer and scout?
Personally, I think defensive play is something that will develop in time. It will of course be significantly different than SCBW defensive play, but whatever. From what I see, the T>Z>P>T balance has been formed in the opposite direction-- but with the added benefit that certain timing attacks from the defensive player can crush an unsuspecting offense.
The problem is that by the time you have overseers, the winner is very often already decided.. in a zvz game where both players are doing the same thing, if one player makes 18 drones and then starts producing units while the other player makes 16 drones and then starts producing units, then those two drones will grant him an economical advantage big enough to eventually win him the game. basically there's a window now where you can't scout whether he is producing drones or units, and by the time you get a chance to do it, drone production has already ceased, the advantage has already been benefitted from and there's essentially been given a semi-random advantage to one player.
As for solutions to the problems of scouting..
I'm not really sure what to do with terran. scan is a very strong ability, it might have been too good in BW and it might be good if it's a little worse now. It is a problem in TvT though, one I have been abusing quite a bit lately.
as for zvz, I think one possible solution is giving the queen a shorter attack range. (and slightly increase its damage to avoid worsening it vs void rays and banshees.) This would increase the ability of an overlord to scout and it would normally enable it to take a peek at drones and thus solve one major problem with the matchup.
|
Norway28575 Posts
I've also been encountering the speedling build quite a bit after i wrote this article, but I'm not convinced it's viable at all. once roaches reach critical mass they seem to destroy zerglings quite handily, which isn't strange taking their armour into consideration.. I think people adjusting to the speedling trend through being less reckless is going to turn the matchup into mostly all roach again.
edit: actually, thinking about it speedling builds might be very viable on maps without ramps like kulas ravine, and probably also scrap station. (especially because you'll be able to hold exp with lings but definitely not without.) But I think maps like metalopolis and LT will still be dominated by roach builds.
|
lack of defenders advantage and inability to scout ZvZ has worried me since I started playing beta. Recently going back to BW and actually playing some ZvZ (like Ret, I used to play a different race instead of ZvZing) the importance of scouting and knowing just what my opponent is doing were highlighted for me. It's very disturbing not having that ability in SC2
|
|
|
what was liquid'drone's alias?
|
I actually really like zvz...I think it is more interesting to drop changelings than to have constant ovie maphack over the zerg base for a large portion of the game.
I do agree with the points about defense and high ground, though.
|
Calgary25966 Posts
On March 30 2010 04:27 beetlelisk wrote:
Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO.
Yes, I also agree people shouldn't focus on strategy and should focus on things outside the game. (I'm being sarcastic)
|
Very nice article, thanks!
I agree with all of the points you made.
|
On March 30 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 04:27 beetlelisk wrote:
Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO. Yes, I also agree people shouldn't focus on strategy and should focus on things outside the game. (I'm being sarcastic)
No, I just can't recall any examples where it's so crucial. In early game enemy units walk up ramps anyways, later it's more important how wide they are than just who's standing on a higher ground.
Units that abuse [edit] higher ground the most are Siege Tanks but they outrange anything that would like to shoot back anyways.
Maybe using terrain obstacles like cliffs is big enough without any sort of damage reduction, just avoiding flanking, especially done by melee units (with their new pathing) is big.
I have no idea if there is going to be any tension around sniping spotters. In this regard there better be some.
Maybe being a BW noob I'm not as attached to some things as others but I like your articles too.
|
Calgary25966 Posts
On March 30 2010 06:38 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:On March 30 2010 04:27 beetlelisk wrote:
Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO. Yes, I also agree people shouldn't focus on strategy and should focus on things outside the game. (I'm being sarcastic) No, I just can't recall any examples where it's so crucial. In early game enemy units walk up ramps anyways, later it's more important how wide they are than just who's standing on a higher ground. Units that abuse [edit] higher ground the most are Siege Tanks but they outrange anything that would like to shoot back anyways. Maybe using terrain obstacles like cliffs is big enough without any sort of damage reduction, just avoiding flanking, especially done by melee units (with their new pathing) is big. I have no idea if there is going to be any tension around sniping spotters. In this regard there better be some. Maybe being a BW noob I'm not as attached to some things as others but I like your articles too.
I'm not being rude, but I've read your comment three times and I:
a) Can't see how it related to anything we were talking about;
b) Don't understand your point at all;
c) Are confident you don't understand what metagame means.
The solution to c) is to read my signature down there. I, however, don't have a solution for a) and b).
|
I really like this approach of tackling the beta: giving lots of encouragement to it, but being very constructive and sensible about how it could be changed.
This can only come from a person who's very clear in their mind about what they wanted to say and what they wanted to see SC2 evolve into. eSports needs more people like you, good sir.
|
Somehow I can't help feeling that something is missing from this article. Yes it's all valid, but Blizzard already said they know about Zerg diversity issues, and I'm sure they know about defense complaints as well. I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of Brood War veterans making prophecies rather than keeping an open mind and trusting that Blizzard has chosen these mechanics with certain predictions and possibilities. Talking about the lack of viable strategies already? Analysis and feedback is one thing, but it's premature to have that kind of tone.
Hasn't Browder said several times that there are strategies he's waiting for people to use, but hasn't seen yet? Things he was worried people would say are "broken"? This means there's more that people aren't using, which they should be.
I think some day we'll look back at this and say we were all overreacting and missing the point of the changes. Being closed-minded and pessimistic is more of a problem than balance. Still, it's good to have it recorded because it accurately reflects how people feel.
|
awesome article. i fully agree with buffing static defence and awarding a high ground advantage. though i swear turrets do more now.
|
Wolfpox your point is valid but you gotta admit static defense doesnt help you much where it sometimes should
|
On March 30 2010 07:48 Wolfpox wrote:
Somehow I can't help feeling that something is missing from this article. Yes it's all valid, but Blizzard already said they know about Zerg diversity issues, and I'm sure they know about defense complaints as well. I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of Brood War veterans making prophecies rather than keeping an open mind and trusting that Blizzard has chosen these mechanics with certain predictions and possibilities. Talking about the lack of viable strategies already? Analysis and feedback is one thing, but it's premature to have that kind of tone.
Hasn't Browder said several times that there are strategies he's waiting for people to use, but hasn't seen yet? Things he was worried people would say are "broken"? This means there's more that people aren't using, which they should be.
I think some day we'll look back at this and say we were all overreacting and missing the point of the changes. Being closed-minded and pessimistic is more of a problem than balance. Still, it's good to have it recorded because it accurately reflects how people feel.
Yeah I was thinking this exact thing while reading the article. Great article but I still think it's too early to tell - I remember hearing an interview with David Kim just as the beta was released saying he thought hallucination was possibly overpowered and they'd look closely at it but no one seems to even be trying to exploit this skill from what I can tell.
The trouble with public beta tests is that most of the people playing are trying to win rather than experimenting and trying different things. Since most experimental strategies are doomed to failure people are going to try what has worked for others rather than try to find the small percentage of new strategies that might actually work if they're properly practised and refined. This means that the few strats which are known to be powerful end up getting even better as people use them and develop them, and most newer strats that could potentially be good get dismissed before being refined.
Regarding the defence in SC2 I think it can be good but it requires a lot more skill to properly utilise, we'll probably see it get stronger as people learn how to defensively exploit things like creep tumors, the creep speed advantage and the protoss force field ability.
|
On March 30 2010 07:15 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 06:38 beetlelisk wrote:On March 30 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:On March 30 2010 04:27 beetlelisk wrote:
Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO. Yes, I also agree people shouldn't focus on strategy and should focus on things outside the game. (I'm being sarcastic) No, I just can't recall any examples where it's so crucial. In early game enemy units walk up ramps anyways, later it's more important how wide they are than just who's standing on a higher ground. Units that abuse [edit] higher ground the most are Siege Tanks but they outrange anything that would like to shoot back anyways. Maybe using terrain obstacles like cliffs is big enough without any sort of damage reduction, just avoiding flanking, especially done by melee units (with their new pathing) is big. I have no idea if there is going to be any tension around sniping spotters. In this regard there better be some. Maybe being a BW noob I'm not as attached to some things as others but I like your articles too. I'm not being rude, but I've read your comment three times and I: a) Can't see how it related to anything we were talking about; b) Don't understand your point at all; c) Are confident you don't understand what metagame means. The solution to c) is to read my signature down there. I, however, don't have a solution for a) and b).
OK.
I've always understood metagame as overall builds, strategies and units you make more (or at all like Corsairs) in a mu.
Article says
The lack of a real high ground advantage is far from the only example of defense being weakened though... Units in Sc2 generally deal more damage faster than they did in BW.
Instead of damage reduction, units on a higher ground (or ramps) can't be shot at all if there is no spotter around and they aren't standing too close to the edges. I'm not sure about those on ramps, I think I read they are flashing when they shoot but without a vision nothing can shoot back?
This makes it harder to abuse for units with lower range and nearly impossible if there is anything to give a vision on the higher ground.
My point is does it matter as much as in BW with all these new units giving new possibilities, with more stress on micro than macro? Aren't openings and unit mixes more important now?
I'm asking that partly because to be honest, I'm not going to miss games where not much but threats happens for longer periods of time. I like fast paced games and I don't mean just rushes and all ins by that.
Making "proper" counters (for example adding Banelings) to deflect attacks instead of relying on higher ground or few Sunkens is something I'm going to like more and I don't mean not making any defenses at all. Maybe there is just no need as big as in BW.
I hope it makes sense this time.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
I agree completely. ZvZ is now a true coinflip compared to SC1 with the fail scouting that we have now. Drone counts were the primary way through which I determined the opponent's strategy in SC1, and now... Well.. Now I hate ZvZ. Boring, random, mass Roaches to victory.
And now I think I'll step out of this thread since I don't have the time to devote to some sort of mass argument that inevitably happens...
|
One of these essential aspects is that there has to be a decent amount of viable strategies to avoid staleness and award creativity, and just as important as viable strategies is that there are enough potential reconnaissance options to allow a player to counter the myriad of possible strategies. Forcing players to guess, and most likely to guess incorrectly, leads to players blindly countering each other in ways that make for a thoroughly unentertaining game.
I concur with you. Great conclusion. Starcraft 2 needs to promote creativity while also allowing players to react to said creative strategy. WhiteRa and TLO match were perfect exemple. I hope this sort of play becomes standard. In the long run though, there's still two expansion to come, and the game won't really be finished till then. New units will probably change everything. An expansion also allows blizzard to add new strategies and improve other things.
|
"All in" rewarded too much, making sure that NOT scouting isn't too much of an attractive option, and making sure that windows available for recon aren't too short or too long. Making sure that static defense (be it from structure buffs or high ground implementation) is strong enough to reward a multitude of build order options, while not being too over-powering to early "rush" style pressure tactics...
man, this is a lot to think about. Really well written article, that more than anything gives me insight as to how hard balancing a game like this really is. Thank you very much.
|
Blizzard is so lucky to have you guys : )
|
On March 30 2010 09:18 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 07:15 Chill wrote:On March 30 2010 06:38 beetlelisk wrote:On March 30 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:On March 30 2010 04:27 beetlelisk wrote:
Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO. Yes, I also agree people shouldn't focus on strategy and should focus on things outside the game. (I'm being sarcastic) No, I just can't recall any examples where it's so crucial. In early game enemy units walk up ramps anyways, later it's more important how wide they are than just who's standing on a higher ground. Units that abuse [edit] higher ground the most are Siege Tanks but they outrange anything that would like to shoot back anyways. Maybe using terrain obstacles like cliffs is big enough without any sort of damage reduction, just avoiding flanking, especially done by melee units (with their new pathing) is big. I have no idea if there is going to be any tension around sniping spotters. In this regard there better be some. Maybe being a BW noob I'm not as attached to some things as others but I like your articles too. I'm not being rude, but I've read your comment three times and I: a) Can't see how it related to anything we were talking about; b) Don't understand your point at all; c) Are confident you don't understand what metagame means. The solution to c) is to read my signature down there. I, however, don't have a solution for a) and b). OK. I've always understood metagame as overall builds, strategies and units you make more (or at all like Corsairs) in a mu.
You are close. Meta literally means "beyond." So the metagame is the game "beyond" the game, which means the predictions and guesses about what your opponent is going to do. It relates to build orders because the players are trying to guess what their opponent is likely to do based on past experience, what other players of that race do on that map, the opponenets personality, and other information that exists outside of the particular game they are playing.
So yes, the builds have something to do with it, but doing a build in a particular build is just a strategy. Trying to guess what build the opponent will do based on outside information is the metagame.
So what you want is more diverse possible strategies, which allow for a more rich metagame.
|
Sick write up Drone!
I barely played any SC2 and I feel like that defense seems a bit weak  . However, I do like that terran bunkers are more useful with the new marauder!
|
Excellent, excellent article. I was actually inbound to make a post about how incomplete scouting seems right now and how difficult defense is without mass units, but this is a far more detailed and better explanation all around, and has a much more long-term perspective. I really, really hope Blizzard is paying attention to this.
|
agree with ZvZ scouting. After ling+queen is out there is no way to find out your opponent is doing until you get Lair
|
great article.
just wondering, why cant you use overlords in zvz?
edit: oh overlords dont have the sight. its overseers that do.
|
pvz is not as hard to scout as most might think.
its just that stargate builds haven't been "standardized" yet.
|
give 25% high ground miss and the depots + 500 hp
|
Great article! I agree that if nothing else static defense or a high ground advantage needs to be installed, look at PvP right now. Even though the warp gate research time was increased we still see most players using the 3 warpgate build, simply because with no high ground advantage/static defense it is almost impossible to hold off without copying the exact same build and having 3 warp gates yourself.
|
On March 29 2010 22:23 Hot_Bid wrote:
Nice article!
Agree on a lot of points, especially ZvZ, that mu single handedly makes me not like playing Zerg.
I also think static D needs to be buffed and high ground needs to be changed.
I agree 100%. I'm a Zerg player, yet I hate ZvZ. It used to be my favorite matchup, too.
|
On March 31 2010 01:12 jackofclubs81 wrote:
give 25% high ground miss and the depots + 500 hp
I am going to assume you meant 500hp, rather than the current +500(I believe making it 850?). We want to adjust defensive capabilities, not make depot walls invincible.
|
On March 30 2010 16:35 29 fps wrote:
great article.
just wondering, why cant you use overlords in zvz?
edit: oh overlords dont have the sight. its overseers that do.
What? It's because a Queen can kill it
|
On March 30 2010 09:18 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 07:15 Chill wrote:On March 30 2010 06:38 beetlelisk wrote:On March 30 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:On March 30 2010 04:27 beetlelisk wrote:
Metagame is the real thing on which people should focus IMO. Yes, I also agree people shouldn't focus on strategy and should focus on things outside the game. (I'm being sarcastic) No, I just can't recall any examples where it's so crucial. In early game enemy units walk up ramps anyways, later it's more important how wide they are than just who's standing on a higher ground. Units that abuse [edit] higher ground the most are Siege Tanks but they outrange anything that would like to shoot back anyways. Maybe using terrain obstacles like cliffs is big enough without any sort of damage reduction, just avoiding flanking, especially done by melee units (with their new pathing) is big. I have no idea if there is going to be any tension around sniping spotters. In this regard there better be some. Maybe being a BW noob I'm not as attached to some things as others but I like your articles too. I'm not being rude, but I've read your comment three times and I: a) Can't see how it related to anything we were talking about; b) Don't understand your point at all; c) Are confident you don't understand what metagame means. The solution to c) is to read my signature down there. I, however, don't have a solution for a) and b). OK. I've always understood metagame as overall builds, strategies and units you make more (or at all like Corsairs) in a mu. Article says Show nested quote +The lack of a real high ground advantage is far from the only example of defense being weakened though... Units in Sc2 generally deal more damage faster than they did in BW. Instead of damage reduction, units on a higher ground (or ramps) can't be shot at all if there is no spotter around and they aren't standing too close to the edges. I'm not sure about those on ramps, I think I read they are flashing when they shoot but without a vision nothing can shoot back? This makes it harder to abuse for units with lower range and nearly impossible if there is anything to give a vision on the higher ground. My point is does it matter as much as in BW with all these new units giving new possibilities, with more stress on micro than macro? Aren't openings and unit mixes more important now? I'm asking that partly because to be honest, I'm not going to miss games where not much but threats happens for longer periods of time. I like fast paced games and I don't mean just rushes and all ins by that. Making "proper" counters (for example adding Banelings) to deflect attacks instead of relying on higher ground or few Sunkens is something I'm going to like more and I don't mean not making any defenses at all. Maybe there is just no need as big as in BW. I hope it makes sense this time.
Have you read the earlier news post almost exclusively dedicated to the high ground topic at all?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142
On March 31 2010 03:32 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2010 22:23 Hot_Bid wrote:
Nice article!
Agree on a lot of points, especially ZvZ, that mu single handedly makes me not like playing Zerg.
I also think static D needs to be buffed and high ground needs to be changed. I agree 100%. I'm a Zerg player, yet I hate ZvZ. It used to be my favorite matchup, too.
I think I'm like the only person in the world who enjoys zvz now...I honestly though BW zvz was incredibly boring. Maybe it's just the novelty of sc2 that's got me. I don't at all feel like it's all about roaches, I think it's very interesting how the timing of all the ups is now much more important, burrow micro, nydus hit/run backstabs, muta/hydra transitions, no 24/7 overlord spotter all early game, etc.
Or maybe it's just because sc2 zvz is the only place I can beat players better than myself lol
|
5673 Posts
Just wanted to point out that the new patch does basically what Drone suggested -
o Missile Turret
+ The damage has been changed from 7+7 armored to 12.
o Photon Cannon
+ Life and Shield values have been increased from 125/125 to 150/150.
o Spine Crawler
+ Damage has been increased from 20+10 armored to 25+5 armored.
+ Attack period decreased from 2.2 to 1.6.
o Spore Crawler
+ The cost has been decreased from 100 to 75.
All of the above obviously make static defence more viable. Nice to see Blizzard listening to the community!
|
well put.
|
People needs to stop saying that scanning COSTS minerals. By your logic, when I spend my spawn larva on units, I'm losing minerals since I could have used those larva for drones. When I chrono boost a building, I'm losing minerals since I could have used it on nexus. Scan gives you an instant scout on a huge radius, as well as revealing stealth units. You really need to stop bitching about scan. Other than that, good read.
|
Melbourne5338 Posts
On March 31 2010 07:36 bendez wrote:
People needs to stop saying that scanning COSTS minerals. By your logic, when I spend my spawn larva on units, I'm losing minerals since I could have used those larva for drones. When I chrono boost a building, I'm losing minerals since I could have used it on nexus. Scan gives you an instant scout on a huge radius, as well as revealing stealth units. You really need to stop bitching about scan. Other than that, good read.
MULEs are pure minerals because they are not subject to worker saturation and thus are still worth minerals later in the game. While not building Probes/Drones is obviously costing some potential income, they don't have a quantifiable benefit and the benefit of extra mining workers is negligible (possibly even negative effect) after hitting 2+ workers per patch.
|
I've been promoting the idea that defense needs to be strengthened since the game came out. It's very odd to see defending be a weaker position than attacking in most situations, or at the very least roughly even. It should definitely take less resources to defend than to attack and that is simply not the case right now, which means there is no real reason to ever defend.
I hope this gets revisited in the coming weeks/months.
edit: The other thing I hope gets more attention is the power of all-ins right now. Granted timing pushes are especially strong when play has not yet evolved, but there is much less potential for back-and-forth right now because being on the defensive is extremely weak in SC2.
In BW, for example, you could lose a war in the middle but still hold off an attack with your newly-produced units because fighting defensively was comparatively powerful. This was awesome and is what allowed great back-and-forth macro games to happen.
In SC2, it is possible to do this, but much, much harder since fighting defensively isn't really an advantage at all. If you lose a relatively large battle, there's a very good chance your base is dead because you will not be able to hold off the remains of the enemy army, even with simbase and highground, since these things are pretty easy to ignore in SC2.
This strikes me as a very War3 trait and is not something I have enjoyed about SC2. I hope it gets looked at.
|
Does anyone think that peons in general should be a bit bigger?
i can't click on them very well at all.
|
Also I think that static defense just might not have enough range rather than damage / hp
|
My ZvZ winrate is ~90%, and it's almost never a "roach-> expand" game, as my stream viewers can attest to. People just aren't creative.
|
Great Article! And in addition, I heartfully thought Protoss should be more resistant to fight than Zerg( You may have serveral groups of cockroaches which should be smaller on size in the next version for advise ) in the newest beta version 0.6, considering that most Protoss unit cost more resource than Z & T. Furthermore, Blizzard can consider raise the cost of zealot from 100 to 130, or 150, to balance the increase of its shield and armor/HP, and there may be similar adjustments for the Colossus.
|
Respect to Drone. It's nice to read people with vision of the things, those are hard to find.
|
|
|
Looks like Blizzard heard you on the "defense advtange needs to be reinforced" arguement. They just boosted towers / cannons / sunkens in the latest patch.
Might be a coincidence, but either way, either they're listening to the community, or they know what they're doing. Or a lilttle of both 
|
On April 01 2010 20:12 Jyren wrote:Looks like Blizzard heard you on the "defense advtange needs to be reinforced" arguement. They just boosted towers / cannons / sunkens in the latest patch. Might be a coincidence, but either way, either they're listening to the community, or they know what they're doing. Or a lilttle of both
Yes, that was very reassuring. Whether or not they deal with high ground stuff, this at least shows that they're aware of it, which is awesome.
|
Is it just because of the queen that you find ZvZ scouting to be "broken"?
Or do you say that because scouting isn't necessary as everyone is using roaches at present?
What about using creep tumors as a scouting tool?
Zerg don't exactly have a big selection of detectors to be able to remove your tumors once placed.
|
Norway28575 Posts
the queen is the main reason. in bw you could only build lings mutas and scourge, in sc2 you can only build lings roaches and hydras, so that is less of a problem. but players being blind, especially in a mirror matchup, is really bad for the matchup.
|
On March 29 2010 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
With this said, and this is the key point I would like to make, I am not sure that Starcraft 2 can achieve the same dynamic that Brood War had in its best 4 matchups during the last couple of years.
Oh my god, would people STOP IT with the past tense...
|
I would just like to say, I hope Blizzard reads this and takes it into consideration. I would like to think they are already aware of the issue, but we don't know, and I do believe it is something that if taken too lightly, could be the death of longevity in SC as we know it.
|
Blizzard Chat:"Each expansion will feature a new 20-30 mission campaign as well as new units and abilities for all three races in each expansion pack."
So even if you don't think it's as good as BW when Wings of Liberty is released, that doesn't mean it will be the "death" or the longevity of SC2. There will still be plenty of opportunity for the game to evolve.
|
On April 02 2010 13:29 JadeFist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2010 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
With this said, and this is the key point I would like to make, I am not sure that Starcraft 2 can achieve the same dynamic that Brood War had in its best 4 matchups during the last couple of years. Oh my god, would people STOP IT with the past tense...
Yeah I feel the same way.
the assumption roaches are the only option in ZvZ is wrong. 270 minerals may break a game of infantry vs. infantry, but not a turtle build. The scouting issue can be gotten around by keeping up the aggression in the early game.
|
well at first i hated ZVZ but now its not so bad. been 1v1 in in platinum and gold. a few well placed ovies and some Suicide run in lings makes it ok
|
|
|
i'm really not very good at understanding the game so in-depth like that but you made it a whole lot easier to understand how sc is made and what direction it should go in.
|
Very good read, thank you!
|
Hit all the right spots!
As a T player in SC1 and 2, I feel very uncomfortable with the lack of defender's advantage, and am having a hard time adjusting to the "forced" offensive play style to "kill or be killed".
|
I've been playing the beta for a while now and I'm a gold division player. I don't exactly believe that static defense needs to be stronger. From the start, I believe that blizzard wanted to make static defense less viable of an option. Hence, when it first came out sc2 had a LOT weaker static defense then now thanks to patch..... i forget the number, but still the static defense was strengthened by one of the patches. IMO blizzard didn't really expect sc2 to be a game in which you can hide behind a wall of cannons or sunkens/spines/whatever you want to call them.
What I've found is that static defense still does a lot of damage for not a lot of cost. Spines for example still do 20 per hit for 100 minerals. So static defense still helps when defending. This cannot be denied. What intrigues me is people saying that it is MORE efficient to attack then it is to defend. I do not believe this is true at all. Building a sunken in your base is equivalent to about having a unit in the back that has an attack damage of 20. You still have a formidable advantage if you build static defense because of the damage that static defense can do from behind. The main thing is that you have to supply units to defend it. Sure static defense can't take as many hits as before, but again I think that static defense being weakened was apart of blizzard's plan to discourage turtling.
That being said, defending in general needs to be strengthened. A uphill mischance would be great for one, but I don't really know how this problem can be remedied.
As for zvz, I have a couple of comments. I'm a zerg player and I don't feel that roach is the only way to go. I've lost and won plenty of games using ling-bling combos. (I like the name ling-bling). Also I've seen strategies which have employed banelings and spine crawlers with a follow-up tech into muta. If you think about it, SCBW only really employed mutas and lings the entire time. Roach, zergling, baneling, muta.... that's already double what it was before. Second I do agree the scouting is tough but not impossible. Sending a zergling or two from your base hardly hurts your chances of winning a fight and it gives you good enough scouting of the base. Two lings getting killed is often far more than enough to realize how big of an army he's got at his front door, and you can plan accordingly. Also, there's a queen there with an air attack, great. This doesn't mean you have to suicide your overlord to get vision over his base. Hovering it near the base or off a ledge where the queen can't reach is good enough. Even the so called "times where it impossible to scout the main can be solved by simply placing an overlord in an opportune place.
Just my opinions from playing the game.
|
Norway28575 Posts
you're a good three weeks late. blizzard increased defense 2-3 days after this article and roaches were decreased in a way that really made zerglings viable zvz even later than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/pachi/SC2Beta/observer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/pachi/SC2Beta/static.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/thumb/3/36/DTDrop.png/300px-DTDrop.png)
