|
On October 21 2009 06:18 tedster wrote:
Are you guys honestly upset about the nukes? Kim was so far ahead for the entire game he could have massed marines and won at that point. PLEASE watch the game again and pay attention to supply and worker counts - he was thrashing the Protoss and decided to fuck around with him, so he flipped to nukes. That was NOT a close game, it wasn't even close to a close game. It was a superior opponent nuke rushing because it make him laugh. Honestly I think blue could have killed Kim if he had attacked the nat after winning the large battle outside 12 o'clock. Blue had about 20 zeals, 3 stalkers, and 3 HTs while Kim had 2 thors and about 8 marauders. He could have walked into the main with a few storms and minimal losses.
He was ahead by 20 supply and about equal in harvester count at that point, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that Kim was ahead all game.
Suiciding into the PF was a terrible terrible blunder on his part 
|
EDIT: OMG AMAZING GAME!
If the protoss had a better understanding of the units I would believe he might have won.
Then again... + Show Spoiler +kim is bonjwa for sc2 atm
|
On October 21 2009 06:29 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2009 06:18 tedster wrote:
Are you guys honestly upset about the nukes? Kim was so far ahead for the entire game he could have massed marines and won at that point. PLEASE watch the game again and pay attention to supply and worker counts - he was thrashing the Protoss and decided to fuck around with him, so he flipped to nukes. That was NOT a close game, it wasn't even close to a close game. It was a superior opponent nuke rushing because it make him laugh. Honestly I think blue could have killed Kim if he had attacked the nat after winning the large battle outside 12 o'clock. Blue had about 20 zeals, 3 stalkers, and 3 HTs while Kim had 2 thors and about 8 marauders. He could have walked into the main with a few storms and minimal losses. He was ahead by 20 supply and about equal in harvester count at that point, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that Kim was ahead all game. Suiciding into the PF was a terrible terrible blunder on his part
Yea toss really had the game at some point in time and he just kind of threw it away.
On separate notes, did anyone notice how on the new LT with the buffed turrets 3 turrets can cover that island expo from warp ins or drops basically? I think its a blunder kim didn't try to turret up that area.
Also, for any yu-gi-oh players out there imo storm now just look like huge Raigeki's all over the place..
3..2..1..woosh..BOOM.
|
David Kim already is biased towards going pro in the Starcraft 2 scene, what the fuck. 
Great game, definitely showed a lot of light towards these two races.
Nuke was definitely a wow moment, because its frequency and damage caused just by one ghost (along with its mediavac health).
Storm's new presentation looks great and very powerful, obviously shows the new changes of Starcraft 2 (I heard damage given is different now?)
One of the things that I noticed for automining is that the players still make all workers click into one mineral, which once the workers touch it, they move to different minerals (though this could be talked before, I really like that concept, because of the player's ability to intervene and make workers go to other minerals quicker than that mechanic).
Much of the big battles, wasn't so big, which was sort of concerning for me (but again, nobody should judge the gameplay until they've played it themselves).
Great Battlereport, but I liked the third one better, just because of the micro-management with the nullifiers, infestors, and Warp Prisms.
|
On October 19 2009 20:06 Polyphasic wrote:
Man, TvP really isn't the same without mines.
I really wish they would keep mines in the game somehow. That way, battles would require more strategy in setup, and more strategy in attacking a terran position. Unit combos are interesting, but still seems that in SC2, most larger battles are just attack click. That's really not so fun.
Like my previous threat, SC2 needs more mobile static defense. Mobile static defense defined as:
- A unit that does more damage when not moving than when moving
- A unit that takes time to switch from its moving form to its static form.
- The unit must do splash damage. Splash damage allows for strategic positioning to allow for more damage.
- SC1 examples: mines, siege tanks, lurkers.
Mobile Static Defense allows for strategic positioning in both defensive and offensive situations. It also requires strategic ways for opponents to break the formation. That adds another layer of strategy to the game. SC2 so far has very few Mobile Static Defense, making most battles just an attack-A fest, ending very quickly.
I actually saw a lot of micro in those battles. The protoss was was target firing the thors with the collosus, and the zealots looked like they were given a target to attack too. thos are just some examples though
|
United States3824 Posts
That was some cool nuke usage.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
I don't really think the whole "a-moving" aspect is a problem as players will grow to become more familiarized with the units and learn how to more effectively micro them. Also, so much has been said about the Hellion. I really don't think they should make it a Vulture clone, but yea, the movement animation needs to be changed.
It's not so much that there is "no micro" as that the micro looks much more similiar to a PvP or PvZ. I just hope the matchups will end up distinctly different (unlike WC3 - I like WC3 but it's the same unit mix in almost all the matchups, at least for Orc).
|
On October 21 2009 07:10 Sharp-eYe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2009 20:06 Polyphasic wrote:
Man, TvP really isn't the same without mines.
I really wish they would keep mines in the game somehow. That way, battles would require more strategy in setup, and more strategy in attacking a terran position. Unit combos are interesting, but still seems that in SC2, most larger battles are just attack click. That's really not so fun.
Like my previous threat, SC2 needs more mobile static defense. Mobile static defense defined as:
- A unit that does more damage when not moving than when moving
- A unit that takes time to switch from its moving form to its static form.
- The unit must do splash damage. Splash damage allows for strategic positioning to allow for more damage.
- SC1 examples: mines, siege tanks, lurkers.
Mobile Static Defense allows for strategic positioning in both defensive and offensive situations. It also requires strategic ways for opponents to break the formation. That adds another layer of strategy to the game. SC2 so far has very few Mobile Static Defense, making most battles just an attack-A fest, ending very quickly.
I actually saw a lot of micro in those battles. The protoss was was target firing the thors with the collosus, and the zealots looked like they were given a target to attack too. thos are just some examples though
I'm not saying that there was no micro. I'm saying that there is a lack of a whole positioning and setup for battle sort of thing.
In SC1, lurkers-ling vs MM was hugely about positioning. Then only after both sides feel the positioning is ok, they do attack-a, and micro their units from there. Same in TvP with vulture-tank vs zealot-goon. Same in ZvP with lurker-ling-hydra vs goon-zeal-templar. You set up your position by planting mines, or burrowing lurkers, or sieging tanks, or making bunkers. If the enemy reforms their formation so your position is disadvantageous, you gotta either remake your position, or retreat, or just hope for the best in battle.
In SC2, the whole first phase of battle no longer exists because there is no strategic positioning. There is only in-battle micro with unit targeting. Honestly, if SC2 developers don't realize the importance of pre-battle positioning, and thereof, the importance of "Mobile Static Defense", SC2 battles will not be as fun to watch despite all the micro involved. There needs to be positioning strategy. Honestly.
Consider how strategic positioning plays a huge role in everything in SC1 that is fun to watch. Swarm lurker-ling vs MM tank. Set up the swarm, and position zerg units around that. Then only attack-a when position is right. Stasis field endgame PvT armies. Terran positions units usually with 2 groups of tanks (a forward group and a backward group). Protoss tries to stasis as many tanks of the backward group as possible.
Consider even real battles in medieval Europe or feudal Japan. We are attracted to them because of the idea of huge armies maneuvering for position for days before they finally engage. In other words, they spend days in phase 1 strategic maneuvering, before they go into phase 2 of attack-a and in-battle micro.
How fun would any battle simulation be when you just throw your units at each other? That's the whole reason why Total Annihilation died in the TA vs SC battle. And in medieval Europe and feudal Japan, would it still be fun to imagine battles if all warlords did was send in their units in a blob without pre-battle positioning.
Mobile Static Defense and the pre-battle positioning maneuvers is what made SC1. Sure, SC2 wants to be different, but you can't discard the main thing that made SC1. Heck, you are preserving even the little things like probe harass and dropship harass. If you don't realize that Mobile Static Defense is the main thing that needs to be preserved, you're going to make a game that is great, but not legendary.
|
My thoughts on Thor:
1. Either make it smaller and massable.
2. Or bigger and more unique.
|
On October 21 2009 07:16 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2009 07:10 Sharp-eYe wrote:On October 19 2009 20:06 Polyphasic wrote:
Man, TvP really isn't the same without mines.
I really wish they would keep mines in the game somehow. That way, battles would require more strategy in setup, and more strategy in attacking a terran position. Unit combos are interesting, but still seems that in SC2, most larger battles are just attack click. That's really not so fun.
Like my previous threat, SC2 needs more mobile static defense. Mobile static defense defined as:
- A unit that does more damage when not moving than when moving
- A unit that takes time to switch from its moving form to its static form.
- The unit must do splash damage. Splash damage allows for strategic positioning to allow for more damage.
- SC1 examples: mines, siege tanks, lurkers.
Mobile Static Defense allows for strategic positioning in both defensive and offensive situations. It also requires strategic ways for opponents to break the formation. That adds another layer of strategy to the game. SC2 so far has very few Mobile Static Defense, making most battles just an attack-A fest, ending very quickly.
I actually saw a lot of micro in those battles. The protoss was was target firing the thors with the collosus, and the zealots looked like they were given a target to attack too. thos are just some examples though I'm not saying that there was no micro. I'm saying that there is a lack of a whole positioning and setup for battle sort of thing. In SC1, lurkers-ling vs MM was hugely about positioning. Then only after both sides feel the positioning is ok, they do attack-a, and micro their units from there. Same in TvP with vulture-tank vs zealot-goon. Same in ZvP with lurker-ling-hydra vs goon-zeal-templar. In SC2, the whole first phase of battle no longer exists because there is no strategic positioning. There is only in-battle micro with unit targeting. Honestly, if SC2 developers don't realize the importance of pre-battle positioning, and thereof, the importance of "Mobile Static Defense", SC2 battles will not be as fun to watch despite all the micro involved. There needs to be positioning strategy. Honestly.
I also saw alot of flanking and positionin in the game. For example, that awesome sandwich from the protoss?
|
On October 21 2009 07:22 Sharp-eYe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2009 07:16 Polyphasic wrote:On October 21 2009 07:10 Sharp-eYe wrote:On October 19 2009 20:06 Polyphasic wrote:
Man, TvP really isn't the same without mines.
I really wish they would keep mines in the game somehow. That way, battles would require more strategy in setup, and more strategy in attacking a terran position. Unit combos are interesting, but still seems that in SC2, most larger battles are just attack click. That's really not so fun.
Like my previous threat, SC2 needs more mobile static defense. Mobile static defense defined as:
- A unit that does more damage when not moving than when moving
- A unit that takes time to switch from its moving form to its static form.
- The unit must do splash damage. Splash damage allows for strategic positioning to allow for more damage.
- SC1 examples: mines, siege tanks, lurkers.
Mobile Static Defense allows for strategic positioning in both defensive and offensive situations. It also requires strategic ways for opponents to break the formation. That adds another layer of strategy to the game. SC2 so far has very few Mobile Static Defense, making most battles just an attack-A fest, ending very quickly.
I actually saw a lot of micro in those battles. The protoss was was target firing the thors with the collosus, and the zealots looked like they were given a target to attack too. thos are just some examples though I'm not saying that there was no micro. I'm saying that there is a lack of a whole positioning and setup for battle sort of thing. In SC1, lurkers-ling vs MM was hugely about positioning. Then only after both sides feel the positioning is ok, they do attack-a, and micro their units from there. Same in TvP with vulture-tank vs zealot-goon. Same in ZvP with lurker-ling-hydra vs goon-zeal-templar. In SC2, the whole first phase of battle no longer exists because there is no strategic positioning. There is only in-battle micro with unit targeting. Honestly, if SC2 developers don't realize the importance of pre-battle positioning, and thereof, the importance of "Mobile Static Defense", SC2 battles will not be as fun to watch despite all the micro involved. There needs to be positioning strategy. Honestly. I also saw alot of flanking and positionin in the game. For example, that awesome sandwich from the protoss?
You are missing my point. The PvT surround that happened in game was more like zergling vs firebat battles where the zerglings try to pincer the firebat in the middle to maximize surface area for the zerglings to attack, and to reduce the splash damage of the firebats.
What I'm talking about in terms of mobile static defense and pre-battle formations is more like 4 lurkers + 12 zerglings vs 10 marines + 2 medics. Do you see how these are different?
Who here thinks that 12 speed zergling vs 4 firebats is more fun to micro than 4lurker+12speedling vs 12marine+2medic? Anyone knows that in lurkerling vs MM, there is tons more fun because of the positioning aspect. There is positioning. Then there is strategic ways for the enemy to attack the position, or to hit-run the position. Then there is repositioning. All that jazz.
But with speedling vs firebats, honestly, all you can do is surround, attack-a, and maybe a little micro in the middle. that's it.
EDIT: with the zealot charge ability, even the pincer movement may not be as important in SC2 as in SC1. From what I can tell on the battle report, the toss could have easily engaged the terran force completely from one side without doing a surround, and the protoss units would still easily have been able to all engage at once. Surface area isn't an issue when toss units can squeeze together so tightly and battle charge.
Think about it this way. In SC1, the most number of zealots you would use from one direction maybe would be 6. In a typical battle, you might have 12 or even 24 zealots. Therefore, often times, you'll have to put them in different control groups and spread them out.
In SC2, judging from unit sizes and the damn battle charge shit, you can probably engage with 15 or even 20 zealots from the same direction, and still have them be able to meet the enemy rather smoothly. How often in a game would you need more than 20 zealots in a battle? So in SC2, even pincer movements are less effective.
|
On October 21 2009 07:22 Sharp-eYe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2009 07:16 Polyphasic wrote:On October 21 2009 07:10 Sharp-eYe wrote:On October 19 2009 20:06 Polyphasic wrote:
Man, TvP really isn't the same without mines.
I really wish they would keep mines in the game somehow. That way, battles would require more strategy in setup, and more strategy in attacking a terran position. Unit combos are interesting, but still seems that in SC2, most larger battles are just attack click. That's really not so fun.
Like my previous threat, SC2 needs more mobile static defense. Mobile static defense defined as:
- A unit that does more damage when not moving than when moving
- A unit that takes time to switch from its moving form to its static form.
- The unit must do splash damage. Splash damage allows for strategic positioning to allow for more damage.
- SC1 examples: mines, siege tanks, lurkers.
Mobile Static Defense allows for strategic positioning in both defensive and offensive situations. It also requires strategic ways for opponents to break the formation. That adds another layer of strategy to the game. SC2 so far has very few Mobile Static Defense, making most battles just an attack-A fest, ending very quickly.
I actually saw a lot of micro in those battles. The protoss was was target firing the thors with the collosus, and the zealots looked like they were given a target to attack too. thos are just some examples though I'm not saying that there was no micro. I'm saying that there is a lack of a whole positioning and setup for battle sort of thing. In SC1, lurkers-ling vs MM was hugely about positioning. Then only after both sides feel the positioning is ok, they do attack-a, and micro their units from there. Same in TvP with vulture-tank vs zealot-goon. Same in ZvP with lurker-ling-hydra vs goon-zeal-templar. In SC2, the whole first phase of battle no longer exists because there is no strategic positioning. There is only in-battle micro with unit targeting. Honestly, if SC2 developers don't realize the importance of pre-battle positioning, and thereof, the importance of "Mobile Static Defense", SC2 battles will not be as fun to watch despite all the micro involved. There needs to be positioning strategy. Honestly. I also saw alot of flanking and positionin in the game. For example, that awesome sandwich from the protoss?
You misunderstand him. That's just normal battle micro. It's very different with static units you place before or during the battle and then don't move while attacking. Terrans MUs were alot aobut that. Now no more then any other race.
|
On October 21 2009 07:16 Polyphasic wrote:
I'm not saying that there was no micro. I'm saying that there is a lack of a whole positioning and setup for battle sort of thing.
In SC1, lurkers-ling vs MM was hugely about positioning. Then only after both sides feel the positioning is ok, they do attack-a, and micro their units from there. Same in TvP with vulture-tank vs zealot-goon. Same in ZvP with lurker-ling-hydra vs goon-zeal-templar. You set up your position by planting mines, or burrowing lurkers, or sieging tanks, or making bunkers. If the enemy reforms their formation so your position is disadvantageous, you gotta either remake your position, or retreat, or just hope for the best in battle.
In SC2, the whole first phase of battle no longer exists because there is no strategic positioning. There is only in-battle micro with unit targeting. Honestly, if SC2 developers don't realize the importance of pre-battle positioning, and thereof, the importance of "Mobile Static Defense", SC2 battles will not be as fun to watch despite all the micro involved. There needs to be positioning strategy. Honestly.
Consider how strategic positioning plays a huge role in everything in SC1 that is fun to watch. Swarm lurker-ling vs MM tank. Set up the swarm, and position zerg units around that. Then only attack-a when position is right. Stasis field endgame PvT armies. Terran positions units usually with 2 groups of tanks (a forward group and a backward group). Protoss tries to stasis as many tanks of the backward group as possible.
Consider even real battles in medieval Europe or feudal Japan. We are attracted to them because of the idea of huge armies maneuvering for position for days before they finally engage. In other words, they spend days in phase 1 strategic maneuvering, before they go into phase 2 of attack-a and in-battle micro.
How fun would any battle simulation be when you just throw your units at each other? That's the whole reason why Total Annihilation died in the TA vs SC battle. And in medieval Europe and feudal Japan, would it still be fun to imagine battles if all warlords did was send in their units in a blob without pre-battle positioning.
Mobile Static Defense and the pre-battle positioning maneuvers is what made SC1. Sure, SC2 wants to be different, but you can't discard the main thing that made SC1. Heck, you are preserving even the little things like probe harass and dropship harass. If you don't realize that Mobile Static Defense is the main thing that needs to be preserved, you're going to make a game that is great, but not legendary.
Your concern is perfectly valid and something I agree with, but I'm wondering where and what exactly needs to be changed in SC2 to bring back positional set-up.
It's not as if Blizzard removed all the MSD from the game. It still has siege tanks and lurkers. All that was taken out was mines, or rather I should say that mines were changed since reapers have a lesser version of them. And adding to that, the game still has abilities that are based on position like psi storm, EMP, and the newly added nullifier shield. So in a sense it's not so much that SC2 doesn't have positional set-up but rather that it was not utilized as well in this game.
But the concerns about it are still valid, as the lack of mines definitely seemed to hurt the quality of the match-up quite a bit. This is mainly why I dislike the Hellion and Thor so much since those units are more or less responsible for it.
|
Eh...I'm not sure this is going to be that big of a problem.
Siege Tanks are still in the game, and will still play a big role for T. Even with Thors added to the mix, the Terran army will still be a lot about positioning, with the Thors in front absorbing damage and "pushing" forward to give your Siege Tanks room. And honestly, even if the Thors at some point start to actually replace the Siege Tanks in terms of damage (despite not having Splash), they can always have their damage nerfed. Besides that, the Thor works great, and its large size and role as "meatshield" actually creates possibilities and necessities for positioning, and even more when combined with Siege Tanks.
Biggest potential problem in this regard, I think, is just the Marauder, which seems to be just a little too all-around powerful and massable, while also not being that interesting position-based unit in terms of micro--but if they really do just start replacing everything else on the battlefield, they can be nerfed too. And frankly, I think a nerf has been long overdue for these guys: they should be Marine support units and fair counters against armored units--not the meat-shield, unit-slowing destroyers of anything that moves that they are now. I fully expect this to get corrected very early on in Beta, though.
Basically, what I'm saying now is that the mix of units we have right now is fine regarding "positioning" micro, and that the problem is more to do with balance of the units than anything else. It'll work out as long as the designers are on the ball--and Dustin has mentioned several times that they've noticed that players don't really try to "hold ground" in SC2 as they do in SC1, and that they aren't sure whether or not they like it or not. So they're definitely aware of the potential issues. Again, though, Beta is going to totally break and then remake this game. It's gonna be awesome to watch.
|
Im just waiting for the Thors to transform into trucks or the siege tanks to attach themselves onto the thors, meanwhile some kid stands on a hill with a remote controlling his little radio-controlled toy cars.
Put some wheels on the thor and make it a bit like leviathan from unreal tournament, with a bad ass splash damage miniature ion cannon, and the ability to load 4 marines.
+ Show Spoiler +
I know its a bad Idea, but I just dont think large, slow, bulky, bipedal robots fill any function aesthetically, functionally or gameplaywise. It might as well look like a big tank, or a hovercraft, or the technodrome. I just wish they hadn´t gone with all the cheesy sci-fi stereotypes, instead of making designs that look unique and well suited to their purposes.
Its a whiny post, but its because it would take so much longer to write about everything that seems awesome about the game.
|
I think you might be onto something there with the Thor doubling as a mobile bunker there. The current model for the Thor doesn't really match up to the idea but that can easily change if the idea proves worthwhile.
|
I would really like to see Thor be replaced with some sort of 10 food unit that can lift off (thus fixing its problem of being able to make its way out of bases), and then land just like a building. The idea of a Thor kinda unit is great, but I think it needs to be a bit more epic. I think the Thor should be an absolute wrecking ball that plain and simply has a lot of HP, and does a ton of damage. Yet even so, costing a lot, and being a lot of food.
THAT, or just tweak it so it actually has a place. But I suppose I kinda fell in love with the whole idea of Terran having a Gundam
|
How fun would any battle simulation be when you just throw your units at each other? That's the whole reason why Total Annihilation died in the TA vs SC battle. And in medieval Europe and feudal Japan, would it still be fun to imagine battles if all warlords did was send in their units in a blob without pre-battle positioning.
You're obviously a total noob at TA
|
The hellions need an ability which is used in a similar fashion to Vulture mines. Maybe something less 'permanent' than a mine however, but which will in the short term effect the enemies movement positionally. Maybe something which is excreted directly below the hellion or just behind it.
Eg
- A small blob of glue (which lasts maybe 10 seconds) about 1-2x the size of the hellion which slows enemies movement. This would work well with tanks because it would slow the enemies advance towards them, It would not stop the enemy in their tracks but maybe allow 2-3 extra siege shots off per tank, before the enemy gets in range. It could still be walked around, blinked over, charged thru etc. It would also slow your own movement if you backed back over it. So you have to use it carefully.
- A small patch of the flammable liquid which the hellions use for their weapons (dropped directly benieth the hellion). It would be visible, last maybe 10-15 seconds and do nothing unless lit on fire by the hellion weapon. It could not be targeted so an enemy (or your own unit) must be in or on the other side of the patch to be attacked to start the fire. You would need to be careful casting it in combat as your hellions may auto-attack an enemy while excreeting it, setting it on fire under your own vehicle causing damage to you. The liquid stop enemy units in their tracks temporarily while it is lit or even still liquid, as they don't want to risk getting burned as they pass over it. Certain (but very few and all costly) enemy weapons may also be able to set it off. Eg baneling (costs you a unit) or Psi storm (costs energy which could have been used to do damage).
I think there are lots of ways to make the hellion as a mechanic much more useful without scrapping it by adding a single ability used in the 'mine style'. But the model still needs a rework because wheels cant turn like that when you change directions. A tank can because it has tracks.. but a car can not move in that way.
|
sc2 Power Rankings
1. DK
2. Ret
3. Jaedong
4. Hot_Bid
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.geocities.com/battyboy20012000/newsarchive_files/image025.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2009/3/27/24764_md-Apocalypse,%20Titan,%20Warhammer%2040,000,%20Warlord.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/727/727820/gc-2006-unreal-tournament-2007-preview-20060823084517662-000.jpg)
