|
Inspiration: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23329393473&sid=5000
This is a thread for discussion of the positional strategy present in Starcraft 2. This is basically what makes "map control" important in various match ups.
We all know that "positional" strategy is an important aspect of Starcraft 1. For instance a large portion of Terran versus Protoss involves Terran trying to position his tanks outside his enemies main choke (natural usually), aka the Terran Push, then take out all of protoss's expansions freely.
The quoted section is just more examples of "positional strategyl" or map control being important in SC1.
Zerg also has positional strategies, for instance lurker contains versus protoss and terran. By exerting map control, zerg can place lurkers in a hugely beneficial position (outside of a choke point, on ramps, etc), this massively improves their performance (for instance if you have 3 bases, simply containing their choke, protects all 3 bases from any ground armies.
You see proxy hatch, sunken contains (old medusa), again using map control to create an advantageous position for the player.
Also Terran must keep their ball of marines in the middle of the map, or pressuring Zerg, in TvZ in order to keep defilers/lurkers/cracklings from their bases. If Terran simply turtles with marines/medics, zerg simply swarms and lings crack through easily (against bionic).
I'm wondering if these positional strategic advantages even exist in SC2 and how people feel about it? Is map control that important? Is there ever a reason to try and control the middle of the map with your army? or are units too mobile and abilities that transport units too good that you are punished for moving your army out?
I feel with the current SC2 build, we wont see these armies positioning/prodding/battling it out in the middle of the map like we see in SC1. (watch any TvZ bionic for an example)
I feel like Sc1 with it's positional units (units relying on positioning/map control) like lurkers, defilers, tanks, and vulture mines to name a few, allow far more "map control oriented strategies", such as lurker contains, tank pushes, etc. The mobility of units in SC2 and lack of any "set up time" such as burrowing, or pushing across with swarm, leaves SC2 lacking in positional and map control and more focused on massing and harassment. So what does everyone else think and any comments?
It seems like almost every game I've seen is a large army battling another army. Obviously beta needs more time to develop but I think this thread would be nice to discuss this aspect of the game (also we are missing lurkers).
|
So far from what I have seen, you pretty much just move a control group of units where you see fit and positioning doesn't matter much. I think Blizzard intentionally removed a lot of the positional strategies because defensive games are not as entertaining to watch to the common viewer (ie terran turtles). They are rewarding the aggressor quite a bit, and that will definitely make an impact on the spectator scene.
|
Depends what you call positionnal strategy. It seems that it looks like BW PvP in every matchup as there are no static defenses as in BW, namely lurkers, tanks and mines.
Will see. I really want to see how important Crucio Tank will be.
|
Armies seem to have more mobility than in SC1, terrans can produce two medivacs at once and they are an essential part of a marine/marauder force. Zerg get units that can move while burrowed and the nydus worms.
Protoss actually have it worst in that area, they only get that warp-in ability and a drop-ship.
|
On February 20 2010 09:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Will see. I really want to see how important Crucio Tank will be.
Play TvZ on Kulas Ravine =D
|
On February 20 2010 10:00 CowGoMoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2010 09:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Will see. I really want to see how important Crucio Tank will be. Play TvZ on Kulas Ravine =D
If I had a key, dude, if only...
|
this is a great question and I'm just as curious to find out the answer. Has all the cliff-transversing units made positional play irrelevant now? Is unit composition more important than management/micro?
|
Perhaps give the Infester dark swarm? It'll add more positional strategy and make it a more viable unit.
In my opinion, Blizzard should buff static defenses in order to cut down some of the insane mobility that SC2 is having.
|
I had these thoughts months ago, but after thinking it through, I realized that it merely shifts how you deal with positional play.
Things like chokepoints, high ground and the like will still matter, because of unit soft-counters and unit mixes. It makes DEFENSE much harder, though - and so I think there will be MORE active jockeying for position and maneuvering than the slow-push to set up a position kind of play that we're familiar with - not saying it'll completely vanish, but it'll just be harder.
|
Position unimportant you say? *watches louder force-field rape some n00b*
Tactically, it is as important as ever, but with differences due to new units. Units like banelings and sentry means there is definitely very, very bad places where your army can get stuck at with no escape and the good old concave works just fine. (or don't try to attack up a protoss choke with melee units!)
Cliff jumping units doesn't make map control unimportant, it makes it MORE important once you have a few expansions up, as you need to control both all direct paths to your base as well as all cliff jumping paths to defend it. While it might seem like it, but cliff jumpers do have mobility constraints and mappers can just add one tile of impassible terrain (not cliff, but say... space) to block cliff units. It is definitely possible to make a "cliff choke point" where all cliff jumpers need to pass though to get to the other side of the map. Or just use true impassable terrain with map boarders blocking off all harass shit for pure macro maps.
Given how absurdly killy some of the new units can level bases in no time, having a very, very tight defense with no holes is paramount, which require early warning to all incoming attacks and units in position to block raids. Otherwise a quick nydus baneling, void ray or reaper raid means a very quick GG with ruined bases. Having units out of position is unacceptable. Map control exists so you know an attack is coming long for it hits your bases, and give you enough time to crush it before it spots any building.
The lack of set up time on may units does not mean the unimportance of map control. Or is PvZ a matchup game without map control?
|
It sounds like a couple zergs trying to deal with reapers have emphasized that the zergling surround rapes them. That at least comes into play in the early game.
|
Is it just me or do maps seem really really small? As a zerg i can counter attack really fast with speed lings while defending an attack with roach hydra.
If the maps are actually small this makes map positioning much more important because you will have alot less time to react to anything that your opponent does and are much more vulnerable to counter attacks. So i still think map position is vital.
|
On February 20 2010 13:59 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Position unimportant you say? *watches louder force-field rape some n00b*
Tactically, it is as important as ever, but with differences due to new units. Units like banelings and sentry means there is definitely very, very bad places where your army can get stuck at with no escape and the good old concave works just fine. (or don't try to attack up a protoss choke with melee units!)
Cliff jumping units doesn't make map control unimportant, it makes it MORE important once you have a few expansions up, as you need to control both all direct paths to your base as well as all cliff jumping paths to defend it. While it might seem like it, but cliff jumpers do have mobility constraints and mappers can just add one tile of impassible terrain (not cliff, but say... space) to block cliff units. It is definitely possible to make a "cliff choke point" where all cliff jumpers need to pass though to get to the other side of the map. Or just use true impassable terrain with map boarders blocking off all harass shit for pure macro maps.
Given how absurdly killy some of the new units can level bases in no time, having a very, very tight defense with no holes is paramount, which require early warning to all incoming attacks and units in position to block raids. Otherwise a quick nydus baneling, void ray or reaper raid means a very quick GG with ruined bases. Having units out of position is unacceptable. Map control exists so you know an attack is coming long for it hits your bases, and give you enough time to crush it before it spots any building.
The lack of set up time on may units does not mean the unimportance of map control. Or is PvZ a matchup game without map control?
The post was on more large scale positioning not micro positioning. For instance obviously attacking up a choke will suck. But rather about Map control. For instance if you place lurkers at the enemy choke, you gain a large advantage in SC. The better question is how important is map control, with all the mobility of units (warpgates, more dropships quickly available in medivac, nydus, etc, is it even possible or advantageous to ever move out of your base unless you basically are going to kill the enemy.
Even in PvZ, a large set of strategies for Z involve containing protoss and taking map control. In fact Savior relied on this strategy. Even versus terran they use harass (very present in SC2), to set up a contain (map control). One of the key basics of 3 hatch muta is forcing terran to not be able to exert any map control while you get lurkers set up on the map to delay any pushes.
These units, Lurkers, Tanks, Vulture mines, rely on map control. The FD push for instance is all about setting up mines to secure the map and keep protoss contained until observers.
I don't see any key units that allow you to benefit extremely from map control. Let's say you do pin the enemy in his base for X minutes with harass, is there some type of vulture mine field, lurker settup, etc that you can establish? There seems to be less of this map control play being available. For instance Protoss vs Terran, P basically sits outside of terrans base to help delay the push or catch Terran offguard
In SC2, protoss just sits at his bases, masses up, then marches across.
Will these flanking attacks, map control, etc be that important in SC2? With the advent of more harass units and huge upgrades to mobility in all races. There has to be a tradeoff in the importance of map control. Tanks, Vultures, Lurkers, Dswarm, made map control hugely important in PvT, ZvT, ZvP (if lurker contain), and in TvT. Will the gameflow of SC2 end up more like PvP, ZvZ, and ZvP (non lurker contains).
Example: PvP in SC1, you sit at ur base, mass dragoons + one of X tech patterns. Reavers DTs, mass goons. If you have an advantage on the enemy (your tech pattern is the rock to his scissors), you go attack and win the game if your micro is better.
ZvZ is much the same way. You mass lings early, if you can kill, you attack. There is literrally 0 map control in this matchup at pro level. Otherwise you get muta and mass muta, if you can kill opponent you fight him. The only back and forth between players is one killing the other or light harass (sneaking lings).
I would definitely say ZvZ and PvP are less fun matchups (less strategical manuevers around the map to gain map control), because there are no positional units at play in either match. You can't control the map in most cases or receive no reward.
I see most SC2 matches just from unit composition revolving around harassment, backdoor attacks, or just marching over your enemy. I doubt we will see much containment, or map control, for instance a Marine and medic group moving aroudn the middle of the map trying to keep zerg at bay.
|
First comment: STARCRAFT 2 IS NOT STARCAFT 1!
Positioning/Map control is very important. The watch towers make it much easier to scout the whole map especially as T w/ reapers there who can easily get away or Z with speedlings doing the same. With the harassment ability, the defender needs to defend every cliff spot and normal walking entrance to defend the main, which is easier to defend closer to your opponents base using the towers to some degree.
The main advantage of map control is being able to use high ground where you want to. Units don't reveal Fog of War when they shoot, so holding that key cliff can destroy a passing army giving them no chance to retaliate.
I haven't done this yet, but using the raven's point defense drone with a two pronged attack could also be very viable. Better players will flee from your PDD if you place it down in a normal force on force, but if you can get them trapped, even a smaller force can beat stalkers/immortals/collosi, etc.
Many of the comments I see saying there isn't map control (or it's not as important) in SC2 are trying to gain it in the traditional sense and not thinking about what needs to be done differently. It has been my experience that Terran early game in SC2 is more like Zerg early game in SC1 giving you the ability to harass them if they leave their base and throw up a bunker (sunkens?) if they move out w/ a force you can't handle at your main. [Aside comment: Terrans, use more bunkers, you can just salvage them for 100% minerals when you decide you're safe, but they let you tech/expand faster requiring fewer units].
|
STARCRAFT 2 IS NOT STARCAFT 1!
we need a rule that says that the above statement cannot be made as an excuse for anything starcraft 2 does wrong. just because sc2 is not sc1 does not mean that its suppose to take away the good elements of the original.
|
The point of having map control is that you can expand freely without cause for worry!
Mobility does not change how a contain works - you acquire a position with your army that is advantageous over your opponent, and you convert that military advantage into economic advantage. Mobility only dictates how large the timing windows you have can have before your opponent breaks out. In PvZ, this was observer timing for Lurkers; in SC2 it might as well be Phase Prism timing (to set up a flank) or Storm timing against mass Hydras at your front door.
The main concern here is not that these positional advantages and timings don't exist (for they do), but in that how useful certain units will be (i.e. Siege Tank, Lurker, etc.) in the game, in respect to the tech tree. My answer is - very, because their presence inherently limits mobility. These units' roles will shift slightly - for the early game will likely be dominated by mobile forces, which will be countered by your own mobile forces - but this gives you an opportunity to use less-mobile forces which limits your opponent's escape paths and secures your own. Positional units will be used to fortify existing positions while your own mobile forces are away.
My theory is that as the game evolves, we'll once again return to that old adage of 'split the map in half and deny your opponent his expansions,' in sort of a TvT style of play. I think early expanding will be much much more important in this game.
|
United States33335 Posts
This was a legitimate concern of mine before the beta, from watching the battlereports only. Now that I've played the beta some, I think there was some reason to be concerned. Of course, this could change as the paradigms change in the future, but this is what I am noticing so far.
Map control/containment/position looks a lot like it does in SC:BW Protoss vs Protoss. If you have a reasonable troop advantage and no worry about a backdoor drop/attack, you can try to set up a contain. But most of the time you will have your guys near your bases, and they will move from there to fight at important points on the map (new expansion, etc).
The lack of lurker and lurker+swarm seems to have caused this change for the Zerg matchups. As for Terran, I'd like to play with them some more and see more tank centric builds. I've seen lots of infantry centric builds, and to make a sc:bw analogy it plays out like someone with a dragoon army. When I do see tanks I haven't really seen MASS tanks like bw TvP where the positioning of them is so important because of their weaknesses and strengths (extremely long range, melee weakness). It's more like bw TvZ, where you're just tugging them along for support to set up siege mode for fights, not to permanently take a position.
Also the ability to backdoor a ton of units into your opponent's base has been strengthened, and you can do it even earlier now. Reapers, Nydus worms, warp gate + prisms, etc make it more dangerous to leave your base so early.
In any case I haven't noticed kind of positioning micro where you're forced to the extreme on exactly where your units are, like making sure all your lurkers are spaced to avoid storms, the entire art of building a TvP containment hell, etc.
|
On February 21 2010 05:30 Waxangel wrote:
This was a legitimate concern of mine before the beta, from watching the battlereports only. Now that I've played the beta some, I think there was some reason to be concerned. Of course, this could change as the paradigms change in the future, but this is what I am noticing so far.
Map control/containment/position looks a lot like it does in SC:BW Protoss vs Protoss. If you have a reasonable troop advantage and no worry about a backdoor drop/attack, you can try to set up a contain. But most of the time you will have your guys near your bases, and they will move from there to fight at important points on the map (new expansion, etc).
The lack of lurker and lurker+swarm seems to have caused this change for the Zerg matchups. As for Terran, I'd like to play with them some more and see more tank centric builds. I've seen lots of infantry centric builds, and to make a sc:bw analogy it plays out like someone with a dragoon army. When I do see tanks I haven't really seen MASS tanks like bw TvP where the positioning of them is so important because of their weaknesses and strengths (extremely long range, melee weakness). It's more like bw TvZ, where you're just tugging them along for support to set up siege mode for fights, not to permanently take a position.
Also the ability to backdoor a ton of units into your opponent's base has been strengthened, and you can do it even earlier now. Reapers, Nydus worms, warp gate + prisms, etc make it more dangerous to leave your base so early.
In any case I haven't noticed kind of positioning micro where you're forced to the extreme on exactly where your units are, like making sure all your lurkers are spaced to avoid storms, the entire art of building a TvP containment hell, etc.
kinda of upsetting news
One of the most fun things playing and watching SC is middle of the map battles (zvz and pvp, and to a certain extent other matchups on certain builds), lack these type of battles.
If anyone just watching nony/JF, I expect thats what Sc2 will look like. 2 Armies camping there bases, denying scouting, and protecting against harass. Then when they see teh enemy expand or feel an advantage they push out and either win or lose.
It seems like SC2 designers sort of forgot about this important aspect of SC1 gameflow that made it so amazing and fun to watch. The constant battle for map control, while SC2 emphasizes things that force your opponent to turtle (back attacks, extreme mobility, warping in etc), that make it more of a turtle, or harass, then push and win/lose, or be attacked and win/lose
|
mm It would be nice
If anyone has any replays of contains/pushes or any type of map control things that really impact the game, could you post them here?
|
It seems this discussion is split between those who believe there is no map control in sc2 due to a lack of a "traditional" contain strategy currently and those arguing that the purpose and technique of map control is just different than in sc1, I'll argue the latter.
Scouting is so important in sc2 and even more so in this beta phase where it's impossible to feel certain about what your opponent might be doing. With this in mind new strategies are being employed to gain maximum "map control" without risking your whole army siting at your opponents front door or leaving your base completely un defended.
Even though it might be riskier to move large amounts of units around the map, as we've heard people often saying, the aggressor is rewarded in sc2, so you don't necessarily need to have some kind of static contain to reap the rewards of yellow minerals, watch towers etc.
|
On February 22 2010 09:22 dacthehork wrote:
mm It would be nice
If anyone has any replays of contains/pushes or any type of map control things that really impact the game, could you post them here?
have only seen some T pushes on that android like map with the rocks blocking the short path. but other then that i dont think ive seen anything that we would call a push in sc1.
but it makes sense, weaker tanks,maaaass tank counters,no mines to protect em from angry lolcharging zealots, no lurkers to counter,air/mobility heaviness etc all just make our loved tank a lonely emo guy and as a result T never pushes or contains anymore.
the other reason is that the whole game shifted ALOT more into mobility overall. what does a strong map push help you when the enemy is just flying,porting,tunneling into your base/at your weak spots.you contain a zerg with most of your army? he just tunneld into your base and you lost half your base to a mass of angry zerg & banelings.
i dont know how much the general low lvl of skill affects the whole situation but currently it seems like the standart game is mostly a waiting game till 1 final clash and thats it.
i rarely saw a real back&forth or epic battles for that matter. i mean sc1 fights zvt midgame were HUGE fights with flanking,positioning and sick micro decided it(or a harrass war). today all i see is mass hydras/roaches/broodlords doing a head on aclick battle and thats it. pvt constant pushing,push breaking,harrassing etc made a game exciting from start to finish. now i see banshee harrass and then a 10 banshee 30 marines+medivac aclick battle at one point and the winner of that takes the game.if game goes longer but with some cruisers and thors in.
battles overall seem dumbed down atm. and as said i dont know if it is too low skill or if positioning,mapcontrol,flanking etc really just dont matter enough to make a headon aclick the wrong move atleast sometimes.
|
Ok, reading all this one thing comes in mind. (I do not have the beta i'm just sharing my thoughts!) This is a really fresh game so the passive play of some players or rases can be explained with the fact that there are still rushes and units that people aren't confident countering (marauders,roaches,void rays). I think that with the balancing out and with more playtime there will be much more room for active play with map control.
The new level traversing units such as colossi and reapers and map mechanics such as brush , Xel'Naga watch towers and not being to shoot up cliffs will in my opinion greatly increase the attention of for instance what path will you take when you decide to push or how will you defend and overall map control.
Again I'm just sharing an opinion.
|
Did you guys realize that the new sc2 medic can fly and take some guys on his back too? The new medic is like this dog-dragon from this fantasy story, you know the big white one!
Well back to topic...imagine they would change the medivac model for this big white dog-dragon fantasy creature xD.....well
even though i cannot beta my own i guess banelings can replace lurkers to some extend and can be used to some extend to contain, as can do tanks.
I guess there is even 1 advantage for contains in sc2, at least for now, thath is that units clump up alot which makes them alot more vulnerable for aoe attacks. I would think it would take quite some micro to run vs a contain while trying to not letting your units clump together while the container can position his army with ease so they dont clump together as much.
Of course the nydus/warp/mass medivacs make it easier to engage a contain from more angles or just conterattack. Even though containing seems to have become toghter i can only hope that the terrans still find a way to contain like they used to, because thats the terran way of war.
|
In sc almost all powerful units (tanks, mines, reaver, lurker...) have low mobility and/or hp which seems to favor caucious/defensive play, good positioning, makes offensive use more micro intensive and awesome to watch. Units like the colossus with high dmg/hp AND very good mobility are bad for the gameplay imo.
|
100% agree with the people that are saying so far SC2 games resemble PvP/ZvZ. In general, the game right now is a 1 battle game -> mass up, build up command and conquer style (which is frightening if the game stays this shallow) and then push out and whoever wins the battle with shiny lights wins the game.
And like some people in the thread said, you have to be very careful with scouting, as just one overlord, phase prism, or a few reapers become a huge threat to your base. One overlord unscouted = nydus worm in your base, a phase prism somewhere unscouted is a power grid in ur base, and reapers are self explanatory.
this is all OK, as long as this is due to the game being in beta stages and is simply due to lack of inexperience with the game (of course). But if 3-6 months from now the game is in the same shape, then there is a huge problem.
Also agree with the people saying that the positional warfare may be "different" from SC1, to just think about it in a different way, as now you have to block more paths to ur base from all terrain crossing units, but we'll see...
|
1. Its a Beta
2. Its not SC1
3. At the moment one fight decides the games because the Players are ineyperienced AND Scouting sucks!
If you would know what your opponent is doing you could counter it.
Lets give it some time.
mfg Tyrannon
|
One more thing to keep in mind: two expansions are planned, right? Everyone is sad that Lurkers aren't in SC2, but in fact they weren't in the original SC either. I'm sure that the SC2 expansions will bring new units and new tactical elements (possibly even the return of the lurker), so I'm not going to worry about the overall balance too much right now.
|
Why do you think that the lack of a lurker or anything for that matter in BETA means that they won't be in the retail? YOu can still change a whole lot of things in the beta to fit any holes in gameplay. WC3 retail had new units and buildings that weren't in the beta and even scrapped Beta units as well...
|
On February 23 2010 03:15 flabortaster wrote:
Why do you think that the lack of a lurker or anything for that matter in BETA means that they won't be in the retail? YOu can still change a whole lot of things in the beta to fit any holes in gameplay. WC3 retail had new units and buildings that weren't in the beta and even scrapped Beta units as well...
under you assumptions and your critique (saying this thread is pointless because so much will change), you have to realize this is a discussion on the CURRENT balance / gameflow of SC2.
If what you are saying is to be taken, then no one should even discuss SC2 strategy since in 2 years everything will be different and all discussion is pointless.
The other inane argument "blizzard will fix it, dont complain". The Cause and effect cycle is MISSED by some people. Blizzard will fix things that are well founded, if they knew it was messed up then the problem would never be there in the first place, so discussing aspects of SC2 is like the whole point of BETA, SO that blizzard can change things.
Do you think blizzard already has retail units and lurkers ready to go into the game right now but are just holding them back? Why? they will respond to the way the game shapes up in doing these decisions and discussions like this HELP them.
Seriously, every FREAKING beta discussion is like this. If you discuss aspects of the game there will be at least 5 idiots who come in and say "This is only beta, everythign will change who cares". What they fail to realize is Blizzard changes BASED on feedback/experiments/designers analyzing how the game evolves. If you simply played a beta and said "why bother with any feedback it will all change" you're missing a huge important part of beta, which is gathering info + getting feedback.
It would be like saying, why complain to the landlord about that leaky faucet, someone will fix it. But the only way it gets fixed is if you complain.
so yes, your entire point is stupid.
|
On another topic if you watch day9's recent TvP immortal build vs FE(mainly). You will notice another thing. Basically 2 armys A moving into one other, or turtling at base until you attack. All these harassing units won't matter so much, if there is no map control, people will just park their units in defensive positions and turtle till they decide to do a game winning push.
It's pretty clear that almost all the units are mobile, much more so than in SC1, so that really you have nothing to gain from making them push a farther distance. In SC1 you gain an advantage if zerg must push his lurkers from his base to yours, or his tanks. In SC2 there really aren't any units/mixes that create this opportunity, and the new backstab / mobility units makes it even harder.
|
I don't have a beta key, so I'm not going to try to analyze anything in terms of specific units or mechanics. Instead, I'm going to make the following assumptions. If any of them is wrong, obviously, you should ignore the whole post.
1) So far, SC2 (beta) seems to have more focus on mobility than BW.
2) Highly mobile matchups in BW (ZvZ) tended to be difficult, intense, and relatively short.
1 seems self-evident to me from what (little) I've seen of the beta. 2 similarly seems self-evident. I've seen a lot more people making the PvP analogy than the ZvZ one, but PvP BW matches still tend to be shorter than, say, PvTs. There's obviously a bit of disagreement among the BW community as to how fun ZvZ is, to play and to watch, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'd say that's irrelevant. We're talking about strategy, not spectating (for now).
The main point where I'd differentiate SC2 from ZvZ or PvP (again, without having the beta, so I don't actually know, and it hasn't been out very long at all, so maybe nobody knows) is that as far as I can tell, more of the tech tree seems viable. There might be an equivalent to the Queen, but there isn't, say, a Scout that's useful maybe once every thousand games. Specifically, more of the tech tree is viable than in ZvZ - most of the units seem sufficiently mobile that they aren't hard countered by whatever the equivalent of massing muta/ling is. As far as I can tell, there are multiple ways to have an effective mobile army, irrespective of your race.
So, assuming none of the above is too outlandishly incorrect (again, for all I know I'm completely off base), what it looks like is that SC2, at least at the level of strategy we're currently at, and on the current maps (because can you imagine anyone thinking of something remotely like modern BW strategy in 1998 during the BW beta testing?), has the rough pacing of ZvZ, with strategic depth (in terms of build choice) more equivalent to the other BW matchups.
On the surface, that sounds okay - I'd personally prefer at least a few longer matches, but TvT is a little too slow for my tastes. However, we have to remember that the beta's been out for like a week. If strategy in SC2 progresses somewhat like it did in BW (though I'd predict it would do so much faster, since we know what to look for now), I'd expect to see the following, in roughly this order:
1) A build gets standardized. Someone will eventually come up with the equivalent of the Gundam rush, that completely rapes nearly everything that came before it with raw power and precise timing instead of cute tactics.
2) People adapt to it. One standardized build will lead to another to counter it, and then another to counter that. If SC2 is anything like BW, this will happen independently, and on different time scales, in all six matchups.
3) Maps change. The current Blizzard-made maps, which focus on whatever the Blizzard dev team's vision for SC2 is (more complex ZvZ, it seems) will slowly be replaced by professionally made 3rd-party maps. These will have different focuses and favor different strategies.
4) Micro improves. Advanced techniques will come up, not necessarily on the scale of modern muta micro, but at least to the extent of BW shuttle/reaver use. New builds will develop to take advantage of these.
My guess, my hope, my dream is that these changes will have the same effect that they did in BW - the game will get more complicated, more streamlined, more demanding, more intense, while losing the "oh I lost that battle okay gg" quality that so many low-level matches, ZvZs, and (it looks like) beta matches favor. This is, in my opinion, the only way SC2 will have anything like the lasting appeal of BW - it needs strategic stability. But hell, we don't even have a release candidate yet. No need to be worried already.
|
|
|
On February 23 2010 02:52 dhardisty wrote:
One more thing to keep in mind: two expansions are planned, right? Everyone is sad that Lurkers aren't in SC2, but in fact they weren't in the original SC either. I'm sure that the SC2 expansions will bring new units and new tactical elements (possibly even the return of the lurker), so I'm not going to worry about the overall balance too much right now.
or a more advanced lurker. Maybe they decided everything else was done but the lurker needed to be changed so they took it out till they developed a new lurker.
|
Burrowed banelings. Positional rape
|
On February 20 2010 09:45 Chairman Ray wrote:
So far from what I have seen, you pretty much just move a control group of units where you see fit and positioning doesn't matter much. I think Blizzard intentionally removed a lot of the positional strategies because defensive games are not as entertaining to watch to the common viewer (ie terran turtles). They are rewarding the aggressor quite a bit, and that will definitely make an impact on the spectator scene.
*Buzzer*! Ehhh... This is wrong.
Sorry but this simply isn't true. Position is a VERY important part of SC 2 for every match up. Lets take a TvP for example on blistering sands. If you have map control this mena syou can safely take your third or 4th, get the Xel'Naga watch towers to see when and where they are coming from, and can give you a competitive advantage in a battle. Lets say your T and you spawn top right of blistering sands. Your goal (if you choose) is to control the bottom watch tower so you can take that expo and the gold expo above it. You can place a couple tanks on top of the cliff whee the tower is along with turrets n such, and keep your army in that general area. If you have your tanks spread and your army all in that general position you can keep those expos without any problems. Positioning is very important even without the chance to miss uphills. You can snipe obs or air units to keep vision off making it impossible for the enemy to even attack up cliffs at all which give syou a HUGE advantage. And positioning is always huge. It is better to be out on th emap with ur army nice and spread out then get caught off guard in your choke and trying to spread during a fight. Especially with devastating spells like Vortex, Storm, Hunter Seeker Missile, and fungal growth.
The map control isn't gone, people just haven't been able to take good advantage of it yet because we are all still learning the game.
|
I had these thoughts (as it seems a lot of people did) a while back, too. There's just too many changes from sc1 to sc2 that make it seem like the positional strategic game has changed, but my assertion here is that the tactical positional game has been given a lot of new vitality; I'll give a few examples of things I've seen:
1) no-see-through shrubbery allows for ambushes, hidden reinforcements, or vision games
2) cliff-dancing units (like stalkers [with vision] or reapers) can force players into very positionally-relevant tactical situations at cliffs near their bases or wherever else cliff play is possible.
3) some abilities (like the sentry force-field) allow for close-quarter terrain manipulation for tactical advantage.
I don't know what the long-term strategic positional (both of singular games and the meta-game) implications of these changes will be, but I'd hazard that sc2 battles will have a greater range of tactical positional importance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
