|
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?
|
It doesn't matter if you can hotkey more than 12 units imo. I still hotkey different units to different keys most of the time. You still need that for units with abilities, unless you want to tab constantly.
And for the rest, i've won most my games by microing. Especially TvP.
|
United States4991 Posts
At least in 2v2 there's quite a bit of armor to deal with the various types of units you're facing. It's a lot of focus firing and dodging away from things that kill you (e.g., I have immortals so I have to maneuver around to hit the roaches and kill them, while avoiding getting killed by things that counter the immortals).
I think micro will evolve -- players are still learning the game and it takes time to get decent at this sort of stuff.
|
I think it's just the skill gap and unit mixes. Think about a bw tvp where t harassed p to pieces whole game and is just moving out with a maxed mostly siege tank army and just no-sieges him. That's the kind of attack you're mostly seeing I think.
There are a lot of hard counters in this game, so micro often isn't necessary in some situations.
But there's still a lot of micro or atleast room for it; people are just too lazy, don't see the need, or are busy/distracted by something else. I have to micro my infantry as t a lot vs banelings and zlots etc.
And vs a zerg friend of mine, he did flank my army so I couldn't retreat and lost everything at once, but that was mostly my fault for not paying attention.
|
i dont think its a matter of control groups, but moreso unit roles and economy speed. minerals and resources come in at a difference pace, and units this early havent been explored enough, so its easy to get one decent unit and make lots of it
|
A few things:
First- Yes, you are some what correct, with micro and macro both dumbed down, you can select all of your ball and attack in. You can have that one ball selected while casting with any unit, siegeing tanks, whatever. There is less individual unit control because less is needed.
Second- Even with the first point, the beta is all of 72 hours old. I dont think I can even name all of the units yet, yet alone their abilities, strengths, weaknesses, counters, etc. It will take some time to know what I need to get out of the battle fast, which units I should dedicate to that purpose, how many, etc.
Third- With everyone learning, the matches are often very one sided (at least for me). One match I went up to 4 base as Terran, went BC, and my opponent was still going for 1 base air. Select Units -> A-Move -> Win.
Finally- Wait for the pros. Micro may look different, you dont have to spend as much time sending your ball in with 5 hotkeys for example, but I promise it will be there. I have been playing with stalkers some just to practice, I imagine a small Protoss army of stalkers, sentries, zealots with autocast off for speed will smash over a noob with a larger army. Micro may change, but it will still be there, and the pros will still be the best at it.
|
Uh, we have an unfamiliar game with somewhat similar mechanics so obviously the easiest way is to fall back on having a bigger ball of units than the other guy to win.
Obviously we aren't going to scratch the layers necessary to have subtlety and finesse right away, nor is everyone going to have the same level of execution as everyone else. Once mechanics/control improve we'll see some interesting things as far as unit positioning and micro go.
|
Well its like calling things imbalanced after a short time. We just don't know all the counters that well. Micro will evolve with the game.
|
I've seen a lot of micro action with the sentry unit. Forcefields to trap, split and encumber the opponent. I agree that a lot of units seem to work best when they are just on autopilot when in an okay position. You don't have the same kinds of threats in SC2 such as lurkers, swarm, mines. And psistorm seems hard to micro against.
I think the attack move syndrome is associated with one player having an army that is much larger than the other person and just stream rolling. People seem to be more focused on performing efficient builds and timing attacks. So you'll see a lot of games like that.
It will be interesting to see what will happen once players get more experienced, both in terms of micro tricks and clever use of race abilities. Because you can only get so far with "the perfect build".
|
This is a huge myth. MBS makes you want to throw your units into the fray as Day pointed out in his podcast. Then again, there are some units that can give you a huge advantage like 3-4 reapers on Lost Temple if you micro them correctly.
Almost every unit has an ability that needs some sort of management.
There will be a readjustment period. That and lots of people are still trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
So far, we've seen a lot of hard counters. If you don't have a good unit mix then you will probably lose.
|
Can't expect people to micro when they're still reading tooltips :D
You'll see a lot more intricate stuff when the game is older and players are better IMO, people are still figuring out timings and BOs and such
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Exactly as the poster above said.
You can't expect to see anything amazing coming out of the first three days of the beta. People are still trying to learn the units. Let alone learn all their control tips.
Even by looking at I think it's the third? battle report with David Kim as Protoss against a zerg you can see micro is incredibly important (where he was blinking his stalkers back one by one and keeping them spread against the aoe roach fire). It'll just need a bit of time for everyone to learn the game really. :>
|
This is also the impression I got, but it should go away at least in part once people know what does what.
I really miss more stationary units and positional armies, like spider mines or lurks. Which unit combinations do you think have the potential to become more positionally important as opposed to a-move and generic ability units?
I also miss friendly splash damage.. I'm guessing it's still in the game but I haven't seen it come into play at all.
|
On February 21 2010 06:21 bEsT[Alive] wrote:
So far, we've seen a lot of hard counters. If you don't have a good unit mix then you will probably lose.
Couldn't agree more, and I think the reason a lot of the live stream games have seemed to lack ingenuity is because most players are testing single unit strats at a time to see what kind of imbalances there may be in certain teching.
I've seen some fairy nifty micro so far and can certainly seems to me to be far more prominent that in BW given the less intensive macro process.
|
The game is still in BETA calm down we shouldn't be expecting boxer esq micro and amazing game encompassing strategies and traps for quite some time
|
I got absolutely decimated by a great Zerg flank. I was pushing into his base through the backdoor rocks with a pretty big zealot stalker archon ball but was met with no army. Moments later 2 ultras spawned in the base catching my army's attention while he moved in with a lot of roach hydra ling through the backdoor I entered through. My army proceeded to melt as the stalkers got eaten alive by the lings before I could get my zeal/archon in front. Reinforcements came from his base as well so my surrounded units died easily. In a head to head battle I would have faired loads better. I don't think flanks are quite dead yet.
|
I remember in Starcraft in the early days it would be a case (at least for my friends and I) of building a bunch of units, then throwing them in against each other - nowhere near as much micro as it evolved to. And as everyone else said, people are still testing and figuring units out heh
|
Personally I feel that if you straight away start trying to micro every unit and don't use attack-move you will not get a true sense of how much impact micro is having on each particular unit.
Some units benefit more from micro (vs certain other units) than others. At the early stages of SC2 attack-move allows you to learn all of the other new or changed aspects of the game and gives you an understanding of the base power of each unit in relation to each other. Then as you learn to micro each unit and attempt it against each other unit you can learn to gauge how much effect that particular micro encounter is. This lets you learn when where (and on which units in which situations) to place your micro focus and attention on the battlefield.
|
Is it just me, or do all the units seem to very static and lifeless? For example, I don't see any units that can shoot "while moving" as vultures or mutas can when controlled a certain way. I suppose it will take time for people to learn to control units as they did in sc1, but the difference is that now people are expecting for micro tricks to exist, so they will discover them quickly.
I'm sure people will disagree with me, but I think the process of figuring out the mechanics of the game will be very different ( faster) than it was with sc1, because of all the hardcore gamers who are grinding beta as we speak, trying to figure out the game at a mechanical level. Sc1 didn't have that, because nobody thought those thing would matter much at that point. 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.
I really hope I'm wrong. I don't have the beta... and I want to be able to still do some discovering on my own a few months down the road. I'm scared for that.
|
It's still open whether these units will end up great, but I don't think it's very possible to tell yet.
Try watching a couple of D players (like myself) go at it in BW and there is a lot of A-moving as well, and pretty much everyone is at or below that level right now. Even for better players with more APM, I'm guessing a lot of their brain bandwidth is still occupied by thinking through the basics rather than having had it become instinctive like in BW.
|
once u see more storms and tanks, I'm sure players would start getting better formations
|
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?
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.
|
the streamer so far that ive seen use the most amount of micro is Louder he has won ALOT of games with smart use of Sentry blocking troop movement
oh and also a few games from david kim using mothership and mass hallu = epic
|
Watch the 1v1 platinum league streams and you will see plenty of micro.
|
I've watched a few ppl start to micro pull units back to attack more I think it was NonY when he was playing protoss v terran. It seemed quite effective and i've noticed not many ppl turn on there hitpoint bars. I thought ppl would have them on loads to help focus and pull back damaged units; with all races especially as roaches are a bit meaty there is reason to do it with zerg more now.
|
I appreciate all of you who try to be objective.
Problem when you watch streams or videos - which most of us do as we don't have a key I guess - is that we try to compare SC2 with SC:BW as it is now.
We may not do that. Very important is that SC2 is only now at it's start. How was SC:BW before Boxer came out with his most famous micro? Until then everybody thought terran woud be the "weak" reace. He showed to us that with micro they're not.
Blizzard spend so much time in order to balance things out, let the game evolve a bit 
|
Thread tl;dr but I do use flanking and positioning quite alot. Also I rarely put all my units into one group.
|
I think we're all in a phase of figuring the game out. As of now, the best build just wins with a big attack but I think that's to be expected.
|
It's the whole somewhat stupid mentality of "macro-wins-period" that has developed. It's kinda sad because there is a lot less finessing micro around when everyone starts playing boring macro games.
|
"This game isn't more than a week old and we all suck at it"
|
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..
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.
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.
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.
|
You can't have map control if you don't know you have map control. No player wants to lose their army by camping in the middle thinking they have map control.
ed: as far as micro it's fun and its prevalent.
|
On February 21 2010 13:11 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +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.. 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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
I agree with you 100%
|
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?
I could show you some replays if you had SC2 Beta.... dont feel like casting them onto Youtube! 
|
I guess many fights are kinda A-Move, because the Way ppl play SC2 right now is very Build-oriented, and not very Mechanical, Micro-Macromanagement-oriented. You rush or have the right Unit-Mix, so you win, which leads to lots of "unspectacular" fights.
I do miss Mid to High-Tier Units that require a lot of Micro, like Mutas or Reaver in SC:BW. Maybe MutaMicro does kinda work in SC2, so far, I've not seen anything close to Mutamicro in SC:BW.
Also, I don't know how well you can actually Micro some of the new units like Valkyrie, Banshee, Phoenix etc. Thats atm my only worry about SC2 (though I've not been able to play it myself unfortunately), but I really hope ppl figure out way's to Micro correctly with Mutas and other Units soon.
I'm also a bit disappointed by some of the new Units, that cannot really be micro'ed on a higher level than just A-Move and Target sth. I mostly mean Units like Colossus, Warp-Ray, Banshee, Thor (at least that's what it looks like to me so far), which are replacements to micro-intensive Units like Reaver, Wraith etc.
SC2 looks really fun and there's more Macro and Multitasking than many ppl thought, but nonetheless it's both toned down compared to SC:BW and the Micro is more "Gimmicky" with Spells and Abilities, not really the same as Micro in SC:BW, which sometimes wasn't even intentionally implemented to the game (like Mutamicro).
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 21 2010 13:11 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
I like how you skip the one of his 3 examples that's actually relevant.
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.
This.
People will start microing when they know HOW to micro. You can't treat dragoons, marines, and vultures like they all micro the same in SC1, and likewise you can't assume that stalkers work like dragoons, hellions like vultures, and even marines the same as before. People need to learn all the units first before they can start optimizing their use.
|
There are several reasons why there is little or no micro right now.
1. Since no one is sure of what they're doing, over half of the games someones army composition directly counters theirs opponent and no amount of micro in the world will save that player from having their army destroyed.
2. People are trying to use sc1 concepts in sc2. People have figured out that you can't micro mutas in sc2 like you can in sc1, but that doesn't stop David Kim from using them and demolishing his opponents with them. Also dragoon/stalker micro is different, and I've seen obvious improvement in Louders micro with them over the past few days.
3. I've heard multiple people say you can't out micro the colossus attack. If people can dodge lurker spines, they can micro against a colossus. It'll take time for people to get good at it for sure, but it'll come. This goes with baneling and all the other aoe units as well.
4. Skill level is extremely variable at the moment, even in the same league. Once a loose idea of "standard play" arrives and time goes on, I think the skill level per league will become more defined. Right now however, that is not the case.
|
currently people are making the game looking like a dark reign 3 or a new C&C game, wait for the balance patches & addons to judge the game.
edit: sc was crap before broodwar as well.
|
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?
|
Now I understand what my friends who play DOTA feel when i show them SC1 Vodz and they say that its boring.
|
On February 21 2010 23:13 Rodiel wrote:
Now I understand what my friends who play DOTA feel when i show them SC1 Vodz and they say that its boring.
its because they are used to watch awsome games where people farm creeps for 20 mins and 5 fights/deaths happen evry 15 minutes. oh and also since 99.99%of dota players are terrible noobs that would suck at evry other game they just dont understand sc.
|
You are on crack if you dont think SC2 battles are fucking epic
|
On February 21 2010 20:16 ejac wrote:
. Also dragoon/stalker micro is different, and I've seen obvious improvement in Louders micro with them over the past few days.
he has been getting goood!!
|
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?
dude we've been playing for a few days, come on, nobody's pro yet
|
call me old fashioned, but i still use 3 control groups for my army even when i've had a max zerg army i use 3-4. flanking is just as good if not better in sc2. you're just seeing people learn the game and see what works and what doesn't.
if you played sc1 vanilla people did some pretty dumb shit... i.e. teching straight to reavers or wraiths without making any other units and/or walling was pretty common on a lot of maps. You would probably wonder why people didn't scout, but that was the case 19/20 games.
|
The reason I'm not too worried right now is that I have seen numerous fairly obvious mistakes where if a battle was microed differently it would have gone differently, and examples where using a little strategy would have produced a different outcome.
Micro: Right now I'm watching ggtemplar's stream and he seems to be playing around with a marauder hellion combo vs zerg... at first he a-moved and lost but in his next game he kinda let the marauders do their thing and danced his hellions backwards and forwards during the battle and won a battle with comparable army sizes. Its a learning experience.
Strategy: I have seen tons of examples of players who do something like bust up their opponents natural, then lose their army trying to push up a heavily defended ramp and eventually lose to a counterattack. Or win a big battle in the middle then try to push in and win the game only to lose to a counter. Its only a matter of time before people start to realize the value of contains, or winning a battle and expanding and all the stuff the people know from sc1 but aren't really thinking about right now.
|
Latency, yo. It's why War III players make such a big deal out of getting a specific host when they play online. It is often the difference between winning and losing. Routing everything through battle.net just makes the game feel laggy and unresponsive. Even if the game feels smooth to you, it isn't. The game needs LAN support so we can get around this.
Units die very quickly and they take a long time to respond. This is not a recipe for great micro action. At least in War III the units are huge, and have tons of hitpoints so it's easier to deal with the game's built-in lag. There's more of a buffer.
They need to crack this beeyotch and get LAN latency going in some way.
|
First off, I have not played the beta, so I'm just theorycrafting here.
I think that good strategy and lack of a-move comes when there are units whose usefulness in a battle is very sensitive to their position. And I think this is especially true for units that take time and effort to set up properly. In SC1, tanks, lurkers, reavers, weak but powerful ranged units, etc were great examples of weak units whose potential to wreak havoc on the enemy increased dramatically with proper timing and placement. Mines properly placed are also a great example of this concept.
So far things seem to be very 'mobile' in SC2, especially with units like reapers and the colossus that have the ability to get in, do damage, and get out without putting themselves in too much danger. The enhanced mobility of units in SC2 seems to open up many more avenues for movement, which IMO in a RTS game can serve to reduce the level of strategy, because conversely, restricting mobility forces the player to carefully consider the path his units are taking or risk losing them.
I haven't played SC2, so I'm hoping this worrying is very misplaced.
|
On February 22 2010 02:20 HalfAmazing wrote:
Latency, yo. It's why War III players make such a big deal out of getting a specific host when they play online. It is often the difference between winning and losing. Routing everything through battle.net just makes the game feel laggy and unresponsive. Even if the game feels smooth to you, it isn't. The game needs LAN support so we can get around this.
Units die very quickly and they take a long time to respond. This is not a recipe for great micro action. At least in War III the units are huge, and have tons of hitpoints so it's easier to deal with the game's built-in lag. There's more of a buffer.
They need to crack this beeyotch and get LAN latency going in some way.
There already is LAN latency in B.Net 2.
|
On February 22 2010 02:24 ZerglingShepherd wrote:
First off, I have not played the beta, so I'm just theorycrafting here.
I think that good strategy and lack of a-move comes when there are units whose usefulness in a battle is very sensitive to their position. And I think this is especially true for units that take time and effort to set up properly. In SC1, tanks, lurkers, reavers, weak but powerful ranged units, etc were great examples of weak units whose potential to wreak havoc on the enemy increased dramatically with proper timing and placement. Mines properly placed are also a great example of this concept.
So far things seem to be very 'mobile' in SC2, especially with units like reapers and the colossus that have the ability to get in, do damage, and get out without putting themselves in too much danger. The enhanced mobility of units in SC2 seems to open up many more avenues for movement, which IMO in a RTS game can serve to reduce the level of strategy, because conversely, restricting mobility forces the player to carefully consider the path his units are taking or risk losing them.
I haven't played SC2, so I'm hoping this worrying is very misplaced.
They are less mobile than air units from sc1, like shuttle reaver for example.
|
I've seen a handful (up to 30-40) games via live stream and noticed a few trends so they must be representative of the game as a whole. J\K bro but only like 10,000 people are in the beta and most of the "good" players among those are just copycats. What do you see every game?
- Mass mutas
- Mass speedlots
- Mass roaches\hydras
- Mass bionics
Out of all of the games I've been seeing and playing I only seen high-tech units (mech, ultras, colossus, void rays, even tier 1 units like Sentry) very infrequently. Above-average players that are ALSO creative are relatively rare. Most of you are looking to these forums to help come up with builds, right? Try some yourself :D a lot of these new, non-BW units are very, very good.
But right now it's about peen so a lot of folks are still playing like they would on ICCUP. Find a weakness, abuse it, reap high win%, lose to any player that scouts you and counters your silly macro rush.
Defending is stronger than attacking in SC2 for a variety of reasons, good players won't lose to attack-moving unless they are behind in unit count due to not scouting and getting caught by brain-dead rushes.
|
On February 22 2010 03:35 Gedrah wrote:
I've seen a handful (up to 30-40) games via live stream and noticed a few trends so they must be representative of the game as a whole. J\K bro but only like 10,000 people are in the beta and most of the "good" players among those are just copycats. What do you see every game?
- Mass mutas
- Mass speedlots
- Mass roaches\hydras
- Mass bionics
Out of all of the games I've been seeing and playing I only seen high-tech units (mech, ultras, colossus, void rays, even tier 1 units like Sentry) very infrequently. Above-average players that are ALSO creative are relatively rare. Most of you are looking to these forums to help come up with builds, right? Try some yourself :D a lot of these new, non-BW units are very, very good.
I've seen a Phoenix lift a Queen with Void Rays killing it.
I've seen 3 Colossi take out buildings by dancing back and forth on a cliff to keep the opponent in his base.
I've seen Sentry use two Force Fields to stop Banelings just before impact, and then a bunch of Stalkers and a Colossus squished them over the block while not losing a single unit.
Try watching the rank 1-5 guys. People like Louder do a lot of crazy stuff.
Dayvie (David Kim) being a dev knows a ton of crazy tricks, too.
Expect lots of Banelings and Motherships, Hallucinations and other crazy. 
|
i have no problems with micro management of spells... everything is sexy BUT, the point of battle micro (excluding spells) is to get the positional adventage (bigger concave, flanks etc.). Now... in beta and with its AI seems to me there is really no need for "positioning" since units DON'T get in each other way and they all attack at the pretty much at the same time (just like probes, you can comfortably grab all 6 and send them to just 1 mineral patch and they will almost momentarily sort themeslves out. In sc1 that was unthinkable) and it kills the real "flavor" :D of micro
|
Like others have said, it's way too early to judge this yet.
Honestly, though, I have been quite impressed with the speed at which people are becoming proficient at spell / FF / attack / retreat micro. I'm excited as to what the future holds.
|
from what I've seen terran is the most micro intensive by far
|
Just give it time people. I for one see all kinds of possibilities with all kinds of micro tricks, but many people haven't gotten past the fact that they can have ALL their units in one hotkey. Once using multiple hotkeys for different types of units I could see people doing all kinds of fun things.
Hellions look like too much fun, but again will only become so once people start playing with them in custom games and such.
Have no fear of microless starcraft for that is impossible, I mean honestly, give a unit to boxer and he will micro it to hell, just cause he can whether it's sc1 or 2 xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
