All I See is Attack-Move - Page 2

On February 21 2010 05:48 FREEloss_ca wrote:
I've been watching streams none-stop since beta began and the 'battles' in SC2 have been generally lack-luster.

I've yet to see any strategic battles/engagements. I've seen no use of flanking/trapping maneuvers and I've seen no use/benefit of map control. I've seen some micro, especially in early game situations with small groups of units fighting it out, but nothing compared to what we saw in BW, especially in mid/late game scenarios.

Basically every game, players attack-move their 'ball' of units into each other. There's some micro involved in regards to casting spells/abilities, especially with Protoss; but for the most part battles appear to be big cluster-fucks until one player realizes they're losing and decide to retreat.

Maybe these aspects of the game will flesh out more with time as it evolves. Or maybe something needs to be done with the game's mechanics. I feel that the ability to hotkey more than 12 units to a key contributes to the way battles are fought out. Or maybe it's the lack of/lack of usefulness with siege units.

What does TL.net think?

On February 21 2010 08:33 lu_cid wrote:
I worry that maybe the game was over-engineered to the point that there won't be much to figure out in terms of unit behavior. Flanking and other tactical stuff will of course be in the game, but I expect more. There needs to be mechanical skill alongside strategy..

On February 21 2010 08:59 Jazriel wrote:

So when BW came out you knew muta stacking and goon dancing? You knew lurker + defiler was good and reaver drops was a build?

New game buddy, wake up. People aren't going to be doing anything amazing for a long time.

On February 21 2010 13:11 FREEloss_ca wrote:


I wrote a blog regarding this a long time ago.

Basically I stated that I'm worried they're going to make SC2 almost 'too perfect', and a lot of the mechanics that make SC1 so great won't exist, because after all, they were never 'intended' to exist (ie. vulture/wraith/muta micro).

I also stated that they're trying to implement 'forced micro', meaning, they try to 'give' the unit abilities and such that attempt to require and encourage micro, where micro should be a naturally occurring aspect of the game. Every unit in some way should BENEFIT from being manipulated and micro'ed, in such a way as to give you an advantage against your opponents units; where as SC2 appears to be full of hard counters and 'forced' unit functions.



You missed the point. I'm not talking about build orders and game-plan strategy at all, such as "lurker+defiler... and ...reaver drops" existing in the game.

I'm talking about the mechanics of unit vs unit combat, the strategy involved in winning battles (ie. breaking a tank push or successfully setting up a tank push), and how one can manipulate a unit to gain an advantage.

On February 21 2010 05:48 FREEloss_ca wrote:
I've been watching streams none-stop since beta began and the 'battles' in SC2 have been generally lack-luster.

I've yet to see any strategic battles/engagements. I've seen no use of flanking/trapping maneuvers and I've seen no use/benefit of map control. I've seen some micro, especially in early game situations with small groups of units fighting it out, but nothing compared to what we saw in BW, especially in mid/late game scenarios.

Basically every game, players attack-move their 'ball' of units into each other. There's some micro involved in regards to casting spells/abilities, especially with Protoss; but for the most part battles appear to be big cluster-fucks until one player realizes they're losing and decide to retreat.

Maybe these aspects of the game will flesh out more with time as it evolves. Or maybe something needs to be done with the game's mechanics. I feel that the ability to hotkey more than 12 units to a key contributes to the way battles are fought out. Or maybe it's the lack of/lack of usefulness with siege units.

What does TL.net think?

On February 21 2010 13:11 FREEloss_ca wrote:


You missed the point. I'm not talking about build orders and game-plan strategy at all, such as "lurker+defiler... and ...reaver drops" existing in the game.

I'm talking about the mechanics of unit vs unit combat, the strategy involved in winning battles (ie. breaking a tank push or successfully setting up a tank push), and how one can manipulate a unit to gain an advantage.

On February 21 2010 17:56 ComradeDover wrote:
Just a few threads over, some nub is complaining about how his 9001 attack-moved zergings and hydras failed to clear out five tanks. What does that say to you? It may be possible to attack-move large amounts of units, but that doesn't mean people are winning because of it. Even if players are no longer forced to micro even in the most basic sense by splitting their armies into control groups of 12, those who choose to will still have the advantage over those who don't.

On February 21 2010 05:48 FREEloss_ca wrote:
I've been watching streams none-stop since beta began and the 'battles' in SC2 have been generally lack-luster.

I've yet to see any strategic battles/engagements. I've seen no use of flanking/trapping maneuvers and I've seen no use/benefit of map control. I've seen some micro, especially in early game situations with small groups of units fighting it out, but nothing compared to what we saw in BW, especially in mid/late game scenarios.

Basically every game, players attack-move their 'ball' of units into each other. There's some micro involved in regards to casting spells/abilities, especially with Protoss; but for the most part battles appear to be big cluster-fucks until one player realizes they're losing and decide to retreat.

Maybe these aspects of the game will flesh out more with time as it evolves. Or maybe something needs to be done with the game's mechanics. I feel that the ability to hotkey more than 12 units to a key contributes to the way battles are fought out. Or maybe it's the lack of/lack of usefulness with siege units.

What does TL.net think?