|
Disclaimer: I'm not in beta, I spectate.
I see a lot of posts and topics about unit balance and special abilities, and there have been a lot of people of the opinion that armies are A-moved and micro is less important. Perhaps the reason for all of these concerns are simply in how many units function in the larger army. What I'm saying is though a Roach, Hydralisk, and Ultralisk are all decidedly different units, they are all controlled similarly and they all move similarly. It's not their speeds that are important, but how they are controlled that is important.
What I'm saying is not that some units should be faster or slower, but I'm saying there's little incentive to micro units when the entire army moves and attacks as it should with an A-move. There is simply little variation in how units move or attack. Trying to give spellcasters interesting abilities and tweaking numbers like Patch 2 did is kind of dodging the problem of varied unit roles in the larger army.
Now I keep mentioning the larger army. There is just an overwhelming focus in making and balancing specialized units that it's kind of ridiculous. Compare a Roach/Hydralisk army to a Marine/Marauder army. How differently do they move? What is the function of each unit in the mix? Well, Roaches can take a lot of hits and Marauders can hit armored units hard. Marines and Hydralisks just deal damage at higher rates. I doubt either side will be compelled to control their armies any differently other than burrowing the odd Roach or retreating when it seems like they are losing. Why is that? Well, there is not much of a nessecity for large army control when every unit functions fine in a single A-moved control group. There's simply no tension watching battles unfold because they are over so quickly. Why? Everything moves to attack. Lurkers would have to be positioned first to attack, Seige Tanks would have to be positioned first to attack, Vulture mines would need to be well-positioned to be effective, Shuttle/Reaver would have to be controlled well to be effective, Mutalisks must find good positions to be effective, Carriers need to be positioned well to be effective, and Medic/Marine needs to be controlled well to be effective. There are LARGE returns in SC1 that are to be had from superior army control that are diminished in SC2 because most armies move to attack.
I'm not being nostalgic. I'm trying to examine how units function in SC1 in the context of the larger army and why they work well together. Lurker/Ling requires good positioning of Lurkers or this unit mix is very ineffective. Positioning is key because they cannot be A-moved then told to burrow into a Medic/Marine army. So how do Zerglings function then? Then provide cover for the Lurkers to move into position, because Medic/Marine cannot target Lurkers and Zerglings at the same time without dying. It drastically changes how armies need to be controlled and increases the importance of army positioning. There is tension because a single slip can cause the battle to be won on either side. There is tension because of this fact, and there is depth in army control and positioning because of this. Roach regeneration does not do this, Stalker blink does not do this, and increasingly Seige Tanks cannot even do this because of the Immortal and Colossus. Rather, they destroy the importance of army control BECAUSE of their mobility (Not the Seige Tank, but the Immortal and Colossus). Hard counters and "imba" units are fine if they require good micro and/or good positioning to be effective. Cute gimmicks like Reaper raiding and Colossus climbing and Storm dropping and Dropship harassing may work here and there, but it's an army composition that requires good control due to how units in that army or the opposing army function that will make SC2 a more dynamic micro-intensive game. Enough focus on unit vs. unit hard-counters. Starcraft 2 is an army vs. army game, let's have some interesting army dynamics, not just interesting counters.
I don't want a disscussion about how this is not Starcraft 1 or how units should be changed. Instead, I want a discussion of how units' focuses or functions relate to the rest of the army. Or you can call me out on the things I said. That's cool too 
|
More unit "attack mobility" means more micro?
|
On February 28 2010 13:25 Spartan wrote:
More unit "attack mobility" means more micro?
Did you even read his post?
He is speaking of something like 1a2a3a syndrome, only with every race rather than just protoss. There aren't things like lurkers and tanks(which arent a staple unit from what ive been reading) which need good positioning and preparation to work.
|
Can anyone even come up with a good example of an SC2 unit that takes as much micro as a lurker, a shuttle/reaver combo, or vultures with spider mines?
Edit: And spellcasters don't count.
|
On February 28 2010 13:31 father_mitch wrote:
Can anyone even come up with a good example of an SC2 unit that takes as much micro as a lurker, a shuttle/reaver combo, or vultures with spider mines?
Edit: And spellcasters don't count.
It's still in beta, so its hard to assume what units will be the micro intensive ones.
Give it time and we'll find out.
|
very good op i agree but it is only in beta, i say give it some time.
|
On February 28 2010 13:27 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2010 13:25 Spartan wrote:
More unit "attack mobility" means more micro? Did you even read his post? He is speaking of something like 1a2a3a syndrome, only with every race rather than just protoss. There aren't things like lurkers and tanks(which arent a staple unit from what ive been reading) which need good positioning and preparation to work.
Admittedly I didn't read all of it because I got a tad annoyed with all the random bolding. I'm not sure why people are saying tanks aren't a staple unit. I've found them to be very crucial in many of my games. From many of my games played I've also still found unit position existent. Sure there's no "mode/stationary" specific position, like having a burrowed lurker, but it's still just as important as SC1 to micro manage your units and their positions in your attack. Why would you do 1a2a3a with an army that had your sentry in it. You'd obviously position it in the back. What this OP is talking about really isn't a big deal. It isn't as if organizing your attacks is less important in the game, I really haven't seen that that much at all. Of course if the enemy has an army 5x the size of mine they don't need to worry about positioning/organizing their units.
Aside from direct unit-specific positioning, the game has added the "can't see up cliffs anymore" gimmick which implements map positioning of ranged units on top of key chokes/cliffs. To me that makes elevations in the game that much more important than in SC1.
|
not bothering to read what you've written i came to miss how in SC1 it required much more skill micro/macro wise
one example i saw today was scouting vs zerg when scouting them with a worker the zerglings kill scouting workers too easily not requiring any micro to hit them
|
You're dead if you just 1a2a3a (it should just be 1a lol) Marine/Marauder to an opponent's army.
|
Yeah, I definitely agree with this to an extent. I really don't think Blizzard should create units with what it counters in mind, but instead focus on how works within the army itself in certain situations. I'm not sure if it's too late to completely re-do units though, maybe change the abilities of the current units now.
Also, perhaps we just don't know how to use SC2 units effectively at the moment. Once we find the perfect army compositions in each match up, then micro should become more important.
|
On February 28 2010 13:51 lolaloc wrote:
You're dead if you just 1a2a3a (it should just be 1a lol) Marine/Marauder to an opponent's army.
then how are u supposed to kill his army with marine/marauder o_o
|
Beta has been out for A Single Week. It may happen that terran Needs Seige tanks/turrets/bunkers/salvage to push across a map. It may also be that protoss will need their super-slow-moving mother-ship's cloak and abilities to win a game. And that zerg will be the mobile attack-moving army that casts fungle growth and out-swarms(with units) to win the game. It may seem like a-moving armies is the -best- way right now, because its effective. And things could change rather quickly.
|
It seems to me that the op is laboring under the assumption that every player participating in beta has perfected SC2 micro/macro as a whole. The fact is, when BW came out, people weren't instantly doing 3base lurkerling contain against protoss rushing to hive to get defilers so swarm can break their cannon line. It took years of gamers playing off each other's strategies, developing metagame, slowly taking advantage of how certain units can be micro'd. For example, a new trick that started out with roaches for example, a roach gets below 50% health, it gets burrowed, and pushed to the rear of the opponents ball. once a collection of roaches gathers, they unburrow and form a surround on the army with fully healed roaches. This is much more effective than simply A-moving, it's just not enough people have thought of this, seen this, and even if they have, maybe they're just focused on developing their macromechanics first, because that is in fact the foundation of strategy, and beta has been out for a week.
|
On February 28 2010 13:53 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2010 13:51 lolaloc wrote:
You're dead if you just 1a2a3a (it should just be 1a lol) Marine/Marauder to an opponent's army. then how are u supposed to kill his army with marine/marauder o_o
1ta
|
On February 28 2010 14:12 mahnini wrote:
1ta
LOL 
|
well hope blizzard decides to put some units on protoss that isnt as mobile then
|
On February 28 2010 14:48 geegee1 wrote:
well hope blizzard decides to put some units on protoss that isnt as mobile then
or slow down the colossus... (alot). I saw response use the warp prism with collosus kind of like a reaver. Looked pretty baller, and slowing it down would make people use that kind of stuff more.
|
I bolded parts of my post for people who don't bother to read and simply skim the post (SevenAteNine). Sorry if it was annoying (Spartan).
I'm not trying to say that SC2 lacks micro. Stropheum's Roach micro example is an indication of that. What I'm trying to say is that it seems like certain units in Starcraft 2 don't contribute anything to making battles more dynamic. Yes, beta has only been out for a week, but that doesn't address whether the units themselves are designed to improve dynamic play.
The case is that units like the Colossus or Immortal destroy things without much micro commitment. Stalkers are much too weak currently, and I don't know if Blizzard intends to change them because they become very very mobile later in the game and would become too strong because of it. Thus, the balance of power in a Protoss army leans towards the Robotics Facility and Stargate units, and every other race is forced to deal with it. Hence, Zerg gets the buffed Roach and Terran gets buffed Starport units.
This would fix it by numbers, but all it does is introduce some hard counter units without considering that maybe changing how certain units work would remove the need for counters and instead rely on the player's ability to deal with those units. Alternatively, maybe they could change something that requires the player using those units to be able to control them properly. This would promote dynamic play.
|
On February 28 2010 14:10 Stropheum wrote:
It seems to me that the op is laboring under the assumption that every player participating in beta has perfected SC2 micro/macro as a whole. The fact is, when BW came out, people weren't instantly doing 3base lurkerling contain against protoss rushing to hive to get defilers so swarm can break their cannon line. It took years of gamers playing off each other's strategies, developing metagame, slowly taking advantage of how certain units can be micro'd. For example, a new trick that started out with roaches for example, a roach gets below 50% health, it gets burrowed, and pushed to the rear of the opponents ball. once a collection of roaches gathers, they unburrow and form a surround on the army with fully healed roaches. This is much more effective than simply A-moving, it's just not enough people have thought of this, seen this, and even if they have, maybe they're just focused on developing their macromechanics first, because that is in fact the foundation of strategy, and beta has been out for a week.
I understand where you are coming from. Kind of the whole Rome wasn't built in a day thing, and neither was the current SC metagame that we enjoy so much. I think what he is speculating about is the lack of actual units that show even the potential to need the level of micro that we see with lurkers, vultures, reavers, etc in SC:BW.
You did point out one thing. Roaches weak regeneration micro which seems pretty cool, but it doesn't truly involve much effort if you think about it. I haven;t watched much SCII but from what I gather roach's tank hits and heal really fast, meaning its probably easy to micro them out. In a middle sized battle chances are you probably have a little longer to do that then lets say split your marines perfectly around lurkers while scanning and target firing the lurker that was placed slightly out of position then retreating or continuing your attack.
Then on the other side you have the Zerg who has to rush in with his lurkers get good burrowing angles to reduce the Terran's room to spread his attack and kill it while preserving his lings to give him the ability to move forward.
Now all of this has to be done while making workers, telling them to mine, teching probably, building stuff on time and macroing off however many hatcheries/barracks you have.
In SCII once again you just multiselect buildings and tell them to produce, workers auto gather, and seemingly the units require less micro than in its predecessor. I am not trying to derail this into an "MBS sucks" fight, I don't really care about that and most of us have made peace with that and mass selection. However when you combine that with the lacking the need for true unit control in battle it seems like it wouldn't be as entertaining or require the same level of skill as SC currently does.
I do agree it is probably too early to tell and I will say I haven't watched enough to have a fully formed opinion yet. When I get Beta I will happily write a shitton about this.
|
i know this is going to sound a bit weird and it's only been a few weeks so these are just first impressions but it seems like there's not enough down time in sc2. perhaps that's not the right word for it but sc2 really requires you to doing something with your army at all times. you cant really park it in the middle of the map and hold territory unless you surround your base with static defense. there's always that threat of a fleet of medivacs, warp prism, or nydus worm popping up in your main that really splits your attention or at least nags you enough to bring your army back home if you are not actively pushing. i think a lot of the complaints made in the OP are a result of this. you can't just hold ground anymore and after playing sc where literal map control was very important this change is kind of jarring.
another contributor is of course the removal of units like the lurker, vulture, and the ineffectiveness of siege tanks (arguable). high face damage units like these will always hold ground because no one wants to poke and prod at them while they're setup but there's a certain risk / reward involved during the setup time, if you can pick off a few tanks or lurkers before they're ready to attack you end up doing damage without having to take part in a massive battle that involves both armies. the one unit i think that works for holding ground in sc2 is the colossus and it's very effective at it whereas no other race has an equivalent unit that deals tons of damage over a line of units holding ground but this unit has no setup time so it's no good to stick around when you cant win the fight anyway.
also, another factor could be that most sc2 units really are capable of just attack moving into each other (aside from siege tanks) i mean aside from minimizing damage with pulling some units back what's there to do? you dont have to burrow, you dont have to draw mines with zealots, you don't have to lay mines, or prevent vessels from being sniped. it seems like as long as you have a decent unit combo and aren't attack moving into hard counters or watching your units die to splash units, you'll usually come out just about even.
it seems like someone at blizzard played one too many micro ums maps and forgot that the one thing that made sc a successful spectator game was the suspense of action and not constant action. it was seeing 5 lurkers borrow and 24 marines explode, zealots dragging mines headstrong into tanks, scourge chasing and hitting vessels, massive terran siege pushes, or just in time darkswarms that really make those OMFG I CANT BELIEVE HE JUST DID THAT moments.
oh yeah. also when you lose a small battle your running back, allllll the way back because units are so mobile and can attack move and be effective so there's none of that push delaying going on either.
dunno if i went on some incomprehensible tangent or not. :O
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
