|
Yes. One of the points I wanted to make was that there's not much reward in holding ground, so territorial control is not as important anymore. It's simply unit composition rather than control that wins battles. High-risk high-damage units are no longer present, and large army control is also not as necessary for the already listed reasons. I don't know if Blizzard doesn't want to risk changing units' focuses (Blink, High HP Regen, Hardened Shield, Cliff-Jump), but their design direction should not be to design units simply for tactical reasons, give other races counters, then simply adjust numbers. Units should also be designed to encourage army diversity while encouraging more attention to micro, encouraging more strategic army control, and rewarding positional advantages.
Simply giving hard damage bonuses to units doesn't encourage micro or smart usage in any way, it simply makes the unit stronger against another type of unit. There is not much risk entailed with using high damage units except the proper unit counter. I used Lurkers as an example of a high-damage high-risk unit.It's also difficult to use effectively and it's difficult to counter effectively, which makes it an exciting unit to watch. It is not an "armored" unit that receives artificial extra damage from a designated unit, and it doesn't deal special damage to "light armor" units or anything. Its effectiveness in the Zerg army comes from how it attacks and how it needs to be used in conjunction with other units. Starcraft 2 units just don't work that way, and army control is not how it used to be.
I think mahnini hit the nail on the head when he said that the one thing that made sc a successful spectator game was the SUSPENSE of action and not CONSTANT action. Increased mobility and generic units in terms of how they function and attack (nothing to do with the numbers) lends itself to making it a smash army with army and see who wins type of game. Even the rather special units with gimmicks of some sort make them "micro-intesive" for the moment, but not for the larger battle at hand. Would you rather blink around a bunch of Stalkers to take down a Roach army, or just build a Colossus and A-Move? Or research Charge and A-Move? In addition, it's just way too aggressive a game right now because not having units that counter rush tactics using "hard coutners" will result not in just having to micro well to prevent losing, but in losing the game. Micro won't help very much in many situations. Have you seen an amy get decimated by 5 A-Moved Colossi and a few Stalkers/Zealots? Why does he even have 5 Colossi? 1. Easy to control 2. Strong as hell 3. Stalkers are made of paper.
It may only be beta, but I don't think the way the units are currently designed will change much in the future.
|
Starcraft has a similar concept with how damage types work against specific units sizes like vultures dealing only 50% to medium and only 25% damage to large units albeit it's implemented in a more limited fashion.
Army composition, though, plays a huge part as well and you can't just discard it by saying that using units effectively is what really decides a battle. Of course micro is very important too but do you seriously expect players to have completely figured out everything after only one week?
As strategies become more streamlined players will figure out new ways to overcome their opponent and micro is undoubtedly one of the key areas where this will happen.
It took players years to discover some of the more advanced concepts and possibilities in both Starcraft and Warcraft 3. What makes you think Starcraft 2 is any different?
There might be a lot of exciting things to watch like spreading armies against banelings, dodging seeker missiles or shaping the terrain with force fields.
|
come on man beta is just a week old.
when skill levels between players are so different. the more skillful player would just outmacro the opponent and just 1a the poor fellow.
|
I want to give this thread credibility. I really do. But seeing the title just makes me think "Great, the next in a long line of 'Starcraft 2 (Units/Race/Critters) too (Mobile/Imbalanced/Shiney)?' threads."
The army that splits up into different control groups and micros still has the advantage over the one that doesn't. Just because you can put all your units in one group and attackmove at once doesn't mean you should, or that it would be beneficial to you at all. I don't quit see the problem.
|
His point is not that there is no micro.
His point is that there are no units like vultures with mines, lurkers and siege tanks that need to be set up properly to be useful. True, SC2 has siege tanks, but they seem to work differently.
This basically turns most battles into straight a-move against a-move (with micro and so on), instead of attacker against defender and similar types of battles.
Basically all matchups currently seem to be more like BW pvp. There still is micro, but in the end it is mostly about a few big clashes.
|
On February 28 2010 21:04 spinesheath wrote:
His point is not that there is no micro.
His point is that there are no units like vultures with mines, lurkers and siege tanks that need to be set up properly to be useful. True, SC2 has siege tanks, but they seem to work differently.
This basically turns most battles into straight a-move against a-move (with micro and so on), instead of attacker against defender and similar types of battles.
Basically all matchups currently seem to be more like BW pvp. There still is micro, but in the end it is mostly about a few big clashes.
That claim is even more ridiculous. Watch any stream and within the first ten minutes you'll see a clear example of attacker vs defender. I'm having trouble believing you've gone this long without seeing sentries "setting up" at a ramp to ward off roach aggression.
|
I partially agree. There are just units that are just too much of a hard counters.
For example 5 immortals can own 15 roaches no problem.
5 immortals can own 15 siege tanks no problem.
Roaches can own marauders and marines no problem.
and so on...
Its very imba to see a unit which say does 10 damage to have + 10 against armored. Or a unit that does 6 damage to have + 8 against light.
More slight variations are needed, I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but instead of doing 10 damage and + 10 against armored, it should do 12 damage + 4 against armored.
Instead of doing 6 damage + 8 against light, it should do 8 damage + 4 against light.
And certainly something like the immortal which does 18 damage + 30 against armored is stupid.
Maybe do 22 damage + 6 against armored.
|
The vulture is 5 + 15 against small(light) and the dragoon is 10 + 10 against large(armored), so I guess BW needs lower variations, eh?
|
Instead of another wall of text i just would like to say that after watching countless hours of streams and replays i have to agreee almost 100% with LunarC and mahnini arguments.
On February 28 2010 21:18 member1987 wrote:
I partially agree. There are just units that are just too much of a hard counters.
For example 5 immortals can own 15 roaches no problem.
5 immortals can own 15 siege tanks no problem. I dissagree it's hard conter fault, imagine theese units in SC1 enviroment and with SC1 AI, there is no way immortals would be able to walk up the ramp with microed roches in an arc on top. Even caught in open roaches could be microed to greatly slow Immortal advance giving time to reinforce base choke, build lings (counter), isolate one immortal and focus killing it or something simmilar.
Same thing in Immortal vs Tank example, lets give +dmg bonus and hardned shield to goons, they still can be blocked by vults, funneled through some choke, tank line could be made so goons focus fire on one tank overkilling it, also 50% miss rate vs high ground units could greatly help the tanks.
|
I don't agree with the original post. The lack of micro we are noticing in games is mostly due to innexperience rather than units and gameplay. People are still unfamilliar with how to manage their units optimally. Armies still need to be managed; retreating some units, moving the powerful and weak units to the back when they auto-move to the front. There is also a need to micro unit to focus down those large and powerful units. If a marine and maurauder army can't kill the collosus fast enough, they will be obliterated.
What of special abilities like force field, psy storm, siege tanks, emp, fungal growth, parasite; are those not considered micro in battle? Simply attack moving in SC2 is more effective than SC1, but don't be wrong, if that's the only thing you can do, you are missing out.
|
On February 28 2010 21:11 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2010 21:04 spinesheath wrote:
His point is not that there is no micro.
His point is that there are no units like vultures with mines, lurkers and siege tanks that need to be set up properly to be useful. True, SC2 has siege tanks, but they seem to work differently.
This basically turns most battles into straight a-move against a-move (with micro and so on), instead of attacker against defender and similar types of battles.
Basically all matchups currently seem to be more like BW pvp. There still is micro, but in the end it is mostly about a few big clashes. That claim is even more ridiculous. Watch any stream and within the first ten minutes you'll see a clear example of attacker vs defender. I'm having trouble believing you've gone this long without seeing sentries "setting up" at a ramp to ward off roach aggression.
The sentry seems to be the unit that comes closest to the units the OP is missing in SC2. I would compare the sentry to the defiler's dark swarm (wtf, swarm at cybernetics core), based on the purposes they are used for.
Mines might be comparable with burrowed banelings.
Lurker ling: approaching the enemy's army with the intention to set up a strong position. Again, sentry comes close: approach, block the retreat path with force fields and attack, while the opponent is clumped and can't hit and run.
On February 28 2010 21:53 Tdelamay wrote:
I don't agree with the original post. The lack of micro we are noticing in games is mostly due to innexperience rather than units and gameplay. People are still unfamilliar with how to manage their units optimally. Armies still need to be managed; retreating some units, moving the powerful and weak units to the back when they auto-move to the front. There is also a need to micro unit to focus down those large and powerful units. If a marine and maurauder army can't kill the collosus fast enough, they will be obliterated.
What of special abilities like force field, psy storm, siege tanks, emp, fungal growth, parasite; are those not considered micro in battle? Simply attack moving in SC2 is more effective than SC1, but don't be wrong, if that's the only thing you can do, you are missing out.
The OP is missing micro types other than focusing, retreating and spell casting.
Like positioning and preparation.
|
On February 28 2010 20:41 lavion wrote:
come on man beta is just a week old.
when skill levels between players are so different. the more skillful player would just outmacro the opponent and just 1a the poor fellow.
I have to agree with this post entirely. Players who played Starcraft 1 beta when it first came out had RTS experience with Warcraft II, but even then the games weren't all that exciting.
Heck, forget SC1 beta, look at Brood War when it just came out. Look at the old Battle Reports from 1999: http://classic.battle.net/scc/br/ . If you were to look at Starcraft 1 back before there were build orders and an extensive progaming scene, you'd find that there were a lot of the problems people are complaining about now with SC2.
Even at the pinnacle of SC1 skill, players in 1999 didn't have nearly the same level of positioning, micro, or even macro skills that SC1 players have now. Think about how long it took people to figure things out.
It took PROGAMERS until 2004 to realize how important macro was. That's 5 years for the game being out.
Mutalisk micro wasn't discovered until 2006. That was only what, 4 years ago? Before then, Zergs were considered much weaker against Terran, to the point that you often see Zerg make a TON of sunken colonies (which you would rarely ever see today).
Defiler usage wasn't popularized until Savior began to use them so efficiently. Again, a development around early 2006. Although Dark Swarm was used before then, nobody used it to such extreme proficiency until 2006.
It's true that SC2 players have SC1 to rely on, but SC2 is a NEW game. Builds are still being experimented with, and they're even more open ended now due to the variety you have with certain things, for example: Chrono Boost, Reactor vs. Tech Lab for Terran, Spawn Larva, Warp Gates, and also the dual gas geysers.
These things add a LOT of variation to the early game that does not exist even in Starcraft 1's current stage. I think it will take YEARS before players can figure out the best use of these mechanics I mentioned - there really isn't an obvious answer.
People are expecting Starcraft 1 players to be able to show all these fancy tricks right away in Starcraft II, or they are expecting more micro and positioning from streams. I think the biggest problems are the facts that the game is new, and the skill difference between players is too high. Remember when Giyom was dominating left and right? Back then there was no Terran timing pushes, no mutalisk micro, and far less emphasis on map control compared to today's Starcraft. Plus, the maps back then were smaller (also a fact to consider in current SCII maps), so the short rush distances discouraged macro oriented builds.
In my own personal opinion, it took at least 7 years for Starcraft 1 to reach the kind of high level play it's at now (I would say the last MAJOR revolutions are defiler and mutalisk play, though builds even now are still being refined). People expecting a completely brand new game with different units and tech patterns to have the same level of macro, micro, and strategical depth in only a week of playing the game are expecting way too much out of Blizzard, in my humble opinion.
Just think about how Starcraft 1 was like before players like Boxer, iloveoov, Savior, and JulyZerg came around. If Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 came out at the same time (purely hypothetical), I don't think ANYONE would think that SC1 has more strategical and tactical depth than SC2.
|
On February 28 2010 22:48 Kyo Yuy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2010 20:41 lavion wrote:
come on man beta is just a week old.
when skill levels between players are so different. the more skillful player would just outmacro the opponent and just 1a the poor fellow. I have to agree with this post entirely. Players who played Starcraft 1 beta when it first came out had RTS experience with Warcraft II, but even then the games weren't all that exciting. Heck, forget SC1 beta, look at Brood War when it just came out. Look at the old Battle Reports from 1999: http://classic.battle.net/scc/br/ . If you were to look at Starcraft 1 back before there were build orders and an extensive progaming scene, you'd find that there were a lot of the problems people are complaining about now with SC2. Even at the pinnacle of SC1 skill, players in 1999 didn't have nearly the same level of positioning, micro, or even macro skills that SC1 players have now. Think about how long it took people to figure things out. It took PROGAMERS until 2004 to realize how important macro was. That's 5 years for the game being out. Mutalisk micro wasn't discovered until 2006. That was only what, 4 years ago? Before then, Zergs were considered much weaker against Terran, to the point that you often see Zerg make a TON of sunken colonies (which you would rarely ever see today). Defiler usage wasn't popularized until Savior began to use them so efficiently. Again, a development around early 2006. Although Dark Swarm was used before then, nobody used it to such extreme proficiency until 2006. It's true that SC2 players have SC1 to rely on, but SC2 is a NEW game. Builds are still being experimented with, and they're even more open ended now due to the variety you have with certain things, for example: Chrono Boost, Reactor vs. Tech Lab for Terran, Spawn Larva, Warp Gates, and also the dual gas geysers. These things add a LOT of variation to the early game that does not exist even in Starcraft 1's current stage. I think it will take YEARS before players can figure out the best use of these mechanics I mentioned - there really isn't an obvious answer. People are expecting Starcraft 1 players to be able to show all these fancy tricks right away in Starcraft II, or they are expecting more micro and positioning from streams. I think the biggest problems are the facts that the game is new, and the skill difference between players is too high. Remember when Giyom was dominating left and right? Back then there was no Terran timing pushes, no mutalisk micro, and far less emphasis on map control compared to today's Starcraft. Plus, the maps back then were smaller (also a fact to consider in current SCII maps), so the short rush distances discouraged macro oriented builds. In my own personal opinion, it took at least 7 years for Starcraft 1 to reach the kind of high level play it's at now (I would say the last MAJOR revolutions are defiler and mutalisk play, though builds even now are still being refined). People expecting a completely brand new game with different units and tech patterns to have the same level of macro, micro, and strategical depth in only a week of playing the game are expecting way too much out of Blizzard, in my humble opinion. Just think about how Starcraft 1 was like before players like Boxer, iloveoov, Savior, and JulyZerg came around. If Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 came out at the same time (purely hypothetical), I don't think ANYONE would think that SC1 has more strategical and tactical depth than SC2.
great post. just give it a time.
|
On February 28 2010 22:48 Kyo Yuy wrote:
In my own personal opinion, it took at least 7 years for Starcraft 1 to reach the kind of high level play it's at now (I would say the last MAJOR revolutions are defiler and mutalisk play, though builds even now are still being refined). People expecting a completely brand new game with different units and tech patterns to have the same level of macro, micro, and strategical depth in only a week of playing the game are expecting way too much out of Blizzard, in my humble opinion.
I would argue that people who expect those things are expecting too much from the players rather than from Blizzard. Even if StarCraft II was perfect, and I'm not saying that it is, it would still take time for macro, micro and strategic depth to evolve. Given how short time the testers have had with the game, it's very hard to accuratelly draw any widespread conclusions about macro-this or micro-that.
|
fantastic post -
It seems as if people expect for SC2 to behave like a expansion to Brood War. Its 2 the gameis new, Blizzard is not going to spoon feed you all strategies and possibilities, variations, micro, macro, etc. That is the PLAYERS job. Blizzard's job is to make a balanced game that is fun, and provides the tools necessary to make new strategies and keep the gaming up and running. You want macro/micro? Play the game and make it yourself, which is exactly how players did it in SC1.
|
YOU IDIOT! The game is soo new. Have you considered no one has figured this stuff out yet!?! How many years was BW out before there was muta micro, shuttle reaver, vultures micro, now ask yourself how long has the beta been out? The combos, micro, BO's, unit mixes have not been figured out in a week and nor should they. SC2 is a complex game it will be years or at least months before little ways to tweak these things arise. I mean think of how Boxer revolutionized the Terran and the game had been out for 2 years already, then ILoveoov came along with the macro revolution. How long did it take for the Bisu Build to arise. If the game doesn't hold some mysteries for later what good will it be? I bet just hot-keying and burrowing roaches properly, so you get maximum healing will become a very big deal. I bet getting the zerglings surround AI confused and making them bug out will be a big deal. Med evac. micro anyone? Burrowed unit splits to waste terrans scans, or target firing specific units to weaken there whole army. I'm not in the beta, I don't know what possibilities exist BUT NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE if you don't like that fact go play Broodwar, I hear the micro is already figured out in that game. lolz
|
Positional Play is very important but in ways we rarely see right now. For Zerg it´s important to keep Creep on the map (just compare Hydras on and off creep) but right now hardly anyone bothers with the Tumor or even Overlords.
Protoss have a very unique angle in Sentrys and Terrans still have Siegetanks, even if they now are support instead of mainforce.
|
The OP is concerned also about POTENTIAL, not just about whether or not the game currently is living up to the legacy of BW tactics.
|
Yes, I completely agree with the posters that are saying that I'm judging the game too early and that it's still in beta and that Starcraft 1 took years to develop the incredible play we see now. However I have to argue that it is BECAUSE we have looked at Starcraft 1 for years that it is easier to discern what in Starcraft 2 has potential to develop into the kind of play Starcraft 1 is full of. Sentries are the closest example of what I mean by army control and positioning. Psionic Storm and Fungal Growth are examples of abilities that have potential of encouraging army control. My question is why limit it to that? These spells are all about limiting the opponent's mobility, but why not make certain units' mobility inherently limited in exchange for high damage or high hitpoints? How your army and how the opponent's army moves is what will dictate the flow of battle. How come harass units can produce immediate results without having to commit to fine control? If you watch a progamer FPVOD in Starcraft 1, they drop everything and focus on controlling the mutalisks while harassing. Why not create a need for this sort of control for all harass units by either making the basic units (Tier 1/Tier 1.5) more powerful against air and/or giving units certain limitations that ecourages fine control? Again, too much mobility for all units is not a good thing in general.
|
On February 28 2010 15:06 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wrong. There is so much going on and army micro is so important. Throw in Mule/Scan/CB/Larvae spit, it takes a lot of APM, so much APM that once you get 3-4 base it's impossible to play a perfect game.
Terran needs ridiculous unit control in battle....try going up against Colossi/Stalker/Zealot/Sentry with Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Viking/Ghost. One mistake and it can be deadly, on both sides...I can only imagine what the pros will do with this..(people like Flash/JD/Bisu/etc.)
You have to dodge thermal lances, strategically position your units so they don't glitch each other, while having your Vikings not run into stalkers, while making sure to snipe/EMP the right units, while using marauders to focus stalkers, while stimming your back line units, while doing 10 other things. It's a bitch to cycle through Terran buildings, especially when what you have selected is just a bit more neon green than otherwise so its hard to tell what you have selected while you tab through your buildings. Add on the Mule/Scan, etc. it's a lot. Now, if Toss gets Void Rays out, the whole dynamic becomes much harder. Terran Air against Void Rays absolutely sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
