EPTStarcraft 2 units too mobile? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
| ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
On February 28 2010 17:13 mahnini wrote: 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 I agree COMPLETELY with OP and this post. There are not enough units with as much emphasis on setup and positioning as in BW. The other problem is that there have been so many abilities introduced to NEGATE any sort of positioning that has been done (charge, blink, moving burrow, summoned units, nydus net, cliffwalking). There really aren't any units that require as much positional micro as tank/vultures/mines/reavers/defilers/lurkers/Mnm. | ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:02 sob3k wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 28 2010 17:13 mahnini wrote: 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 I agree COMPLETELY with OP and this post. There are not enough units with as much emphasis on setup and positioning as in BW. The other problem is that there have been so many abilities introduced to NEGATE any sort of positioning that has been done (charge, blink, moving burrow, summoned units, nydus net, cliffwalking). There really aren't any units that require as much positional micro as tank/vultures/mines/reavers/defilers/lurkers/Mnm. Wrong. List: Hellions, Colossus, Tanks, Banelings, Warp Prism (Seriously don't know why more Protoss don't use this to instantly reinforce battles), MMM (Since you included MnM), etc. Positioning is just as important in SCII as in SCI. The difference being that the positioning is mobile instead of stationary. I think it is for the better and takes more skill. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:07 Rothbardian wrote: Wrong. List: Hellions, Colossus, Tanks, Banelings, Warp Prism (Seriously don't know why more Protoss don't use this to instantly reinforce battles), MMM (Since you included MnM), etc. Positioning is just as important in SCII as in SCI. The difference being that the positioning is mobile instead of stationary. I think it is for the better and takes more skill. Hellions: don't lay mines Colossus: Cliffwalking, large amount of health, long range attack Tanks: apparently heavily deemphasized in Sc2 due to effective counters and cost Banelings: if burrowed, yes, require setup/positioning, problem is they are at best spider mines that deal 45 damage... Warp prism: the reason they don't use it because it is expensive, has low health, and warping in units take alot of extra damage. MMM: Much less positional micro than MnM due to the fact that medics now fly (they cant be out of position or used to meat shield), marauders have tank hp, and the fact that there is nothing comparable to lurkers in the game. All of these units barring the tank and warp prism are fully mobile at all times. Also this doesn't take into account the other issue of positioning negating abilities (charge, blink, moving burrow, summoned units, nydus net, cliffwalking). | ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:16 LunarC wrote: I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you say mobile positioning. The idea of unit positioning relies on the fact the units cannot be effective or can be significantly more effective when positioned strategically and are stationary due to how they are designed. Thus, mobile positioning doesn't make sense at all as a concept. Mobile positioning means having your units in optimal positions ready to engage the enemy at all times. This means having your Medivacs, Vikings, Ghosts, Marines, Marauders, Tanks, etc. all in their own hotkey all moving around the map in the best setup possible. Positioning =/= stationary. Positioning means making the best use of your units at all times. A-moving will get you annihilated by anyone who is competant, especially when you play as Terran. Bio Terran is like SK Terran in SCI. It is very demanding, especially with units like HT and Colossus that can put some serious hurting on your units. Let's not forget chargelots and blinking stalkers flanking your Vikings. If you get caught out of position against chargelots, that will seriously put a huge damper on your morale :p Mobile positioning makes perfect sense. Some people here need to get out of the SCI mindset, and fast. This isn't SCI. They didn't intend to make an exact copy of SCI. SCII in my perspective will have a much higher skill ceiling than SCI. Have you played games that hit 5-6 bases? That shit is absurd. | ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:23 sob3k wrote: Hellions: don't lay mines Colossus: Cliffwalking, large amount of health, long range attack Tanks: apparently heavily deemphasized in Sc2 due to effective counters and cost Banelings: if burrowed, yes, require setup/positioning, problem is they are at best spider mines that deal 45 damage... Warp prism: the reason they don't use it because it is expensive, has low health, and warping in units take alot of extra damage. MMM: Much less positional micro than MnM due to the fact that medics now fly (they cant be out of position or used to meat shield), marauders have tank hp, and the fact that there is nothing comparable to lurkers in the game. All of these units barring the tank and warp prism are fully mobile at all times. Also this doesn't take into account the other issue of positioning negating abilities (charge, blink, moving burrow, summoned units, nydus net, cliffwalking). You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I'm going to be blunt. Hellions: If you don't position them so their AoE hits multiple units you are essentially wasting 100mins, which is more expensive than vultures. You don't think having to position your hellions to fully deal their optimal damage as positioning? What do you call it? Colossus: Their Thermal Lance means they have to position their Colossus in a way so their lance hits the most amount of units possible. You don't want that lance hitting only 2 units when it can hit 10 and you have to position the Colossus just right to do that. Banelings: Stop making excuses. The only thing at hand here is the fact that Banelings do indeed require positioning. Warp Prism: 200 Minerals is cheap, especially mid-late game, keep in back of army, or just behind army in fog of war. Due to "low health" etc, requires best positioning to get your units to the field the fastest without compromising unit integrity when warping in. That's not positioning? MMM: Bullshit. Colossus, Banelings, Ultras, AA, etc. rape MMM. You have to position your medivacs so they don't get flanked by blinking stalkers or storms. There are a lot of splash units you have to account for. This isn't SC I. People really need to get SC I out of their heads insofar as wanting a clone. That's just a short list, which equaled the SC I list. On maps like LT and Kulas Revine Ghost+Tank positioning can be quite deadly. There is a LOT of positioning and micro. Just as much in SCI. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:35 Rothbardian wrote: You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I'm going to be blunt. Hellions: If you don't position them so their AoE hits multiple units you are essentially wasting 100mins, which is more expensive than vultures. You don't think having to position your hellions to fully deal their optimal damage as positioning? What do you call it? Colossus: Their Thermal Lance means they have to position their Colossus in a way so their lance hits the most amount of units possible. You don't want that lance hitting only 2 units when it can hit 10 and you have to position the Colossus just right to do that. Banelings: Stop making excuses. The only thing at hand here is the fact that Banelings do indeed require positioning. Warp Prism: 200 Minerals is cheap, especially mid-late game, keep in back of army, or just behind army in fog of war. Due to "low health" etc, requires best positioning to get your units to the field the fastest without compromising unit integrity when warping in. That's not positioning? MMM: Bullshit. Colossus, Banelings, Ultras, AA, etc. rape MMM. You have to position your medivacs so they don't get flanked by blinking stalkers or storms. There are a lot of splash units you have to account for. This isn't SC I. People really need to get SC I out of their heads insofar as wanting a clone. That's just a short list, which equaled the SC I list. On maps like LT and Kulas Revine Ghost+Tank positioning can be quite deadly. There is a LOT of positioning and micro. Just as much in SCI. I think I get it now. People are just looking for things to hate about SC2. Rather, they already hate it for no reason at all, and are grasping at straws, looking for reasons to cover their bullshit so it doesn't look like it's coming from purely a place of prejudice, fear, and hate. And if that means lying to themselves (Like saying Warp Prisms aren't used because they're so expensive, even though they're probably aware that shuttles cost the same amount), so be it! | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:59 ComradeDover wrote: I think I get it now. People are just looking for things to hate about SC2. Rather, they already hate it for no reason at all, and are grasping at straws, looking for reasons to cover their bullshit so it doesn't look like it's coming from purely a place of prejudice, fear, and hate. And if that means lying to themselves (Like saying Warp Prisms aren't used because they're so expensive, even though they're probably aware that shuttles cost the same amount), so be it! please, why does this have to be about lying and hate? we are just discussing a gameand trying to make it better. I like Sc2 If you are convinced that people who disagree with you are doing it out of pure hatred and love of ignorance, maybe this isn't the best place for you. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
That being said, Rothbardian I think I understand what you mean by mobile positioning. However, I don't think the game is ever played that way in practice. Due to how all of the races have become more mobile, it's almost always better to move out than to sit at a critical position. If units were designed to be harder to move around or be riskier to move about with much greater rewards for taking critical positions, players will have to take great pains to move them forward and there will be a certain amount of excitement generated from that for the spectators. Perhaps I am in too much of a Starcraft 1 mindset, but I have yet to see a Starcraft 2 game that makes me sit at the edge of my seat like a Starcraft 1 match does. Granted, some of the old B-star youtube videos were at least on par with the excitement of Starcraft 1 games, but it doesn't seem like Starcraft 2 games are moving in that direction. I say we should give it more time and if what I'm talking about really becomes an issue, then Blizzard will change it. I at least have that much faith in the developers. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On March 01 2010 11:25 Rothbardian wrote: Mobile positioning means having your units in optimal positions ready to engage the enemy at all times. This means having your Medivacs, Vikings, Ghosts, Marines, Marauders, Tanks, etc. all in their own hotkey all moving around the map in the best setup possible. Positioning =/= stationary. Positioning means making the best use of your units at all times. A-moving will get you annihilated by anyone who is competant, especially when you play as Terran. Bio Terran is like SK Terran in SCI. It is very demanding, especially with units like HT and Colossus that can put some serious hurting on your units. Let's not forget chargelots and blinking stalkers flanking your Vikings. If you get caught out of position against chargelots, that will seriously put a huge damper on your morale :p Mobile positioning makes perfect sense. Some people here need to get out of the SCI mindset, and fast. This isn't SCI. They didn't intend to make an exact copy of SCI. SCII in my perspective will have a much higher skill ceiling than SCI. Have you played games that hit 5-6 bases? That shit is absurd. no one is saying there isn't micro in sc2. there is definitely as much, if not more, necessary micro but the dynamic of literal map control has been watered down a lot. for example, as it is now you dont push at all, you just roll your huge ball of units into your opponents huge ball of units and micro your heart out. every unit is so mobile that you lose a lot of the risk / reward calculation that goes with attacking. consider tvp one of the best examples of maps control in sc1. when a terran pushes out he decides that ok even though my tanks won't immediately be effective against the protoss army i know i can push and hold enough ground with my vultures and mines to setup and control this ground and maybe pick of some straggling goons. the protoss is thinking ok i cant confront his army right now so i'll give a little ground and delay his push. this doesnt really happen in sc2, you have two huge mobile armies with no necessary setup time so you can't really delay a push and you can't really hold ground because the units just aren't designed to. so most of the time you'll be parking your units either outside your opponents nat or inside your own. the loser of every battle will have to pull all the way back to his base because every army is capable of chasing you down and killing whatever you have left, again because of the lack of setup time. every unit is equally effective while moving. if you're winning there's no reason not to push and if you're losing there's no reason to stick around and lose more units. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On March 01 2010 12:09 sob3k wrote: please, why does this have to be about lying and hate? we are just discussing a gameand trying to make it better. I like Sc2 If you are convinced that people who disagree with you are doing it out of pure hatred and love of ignorance, maybe this isn't the best place for you. Well, if it isn't that, then the alternative is that you're just not thinking about what you're posting at all, and writing every half-baked thought that comes to mind. Let me go through a couple one by one: On March 01 2010 11:23 sob3k wrote: Warp prism: the reason they don't use it because it is expensive, has low health, and warping in units take alot of extra damage. An expensive transport that doesn't have much health? Is that, like, the shuttle in SC1? Real underused, for sure. On March 01 2010 11:23 sob3k wrote: Hellions: don't lay mines Why should they? They aren't vultures. Lots of units in SC2 don't lay mines, but this doesn't limit their positioning micro. Think of them as firebats on wheels. If you don't think firebats need a proper angle to maximize their effectiveness then you probably didn't utilize them very well in SC1 On March 01 2010 11:23 sob3k wrote: Colossus: Cliffwalking, large amount of health, long range attack I like how you're making the argument that there isn't positional micro to be had while at the same time mentioning that Colossi are cliff-walkers which enables them to micro up and down positions with cliffs, and while also mentioning they have the long range attack to make the most of their positions. On March 01 2010 12:28 LunarC wrote: ...but I have yet to see a Starcraft 2 game that makes me sit at the edge of my seat like a Starcraft 1 match does. WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL. | ||
|
Kyo Yuy
United States1286 Posts
I saw a VOD of FrozenArbiter vs Nazgul TvP that I enjoyed a lot. There was intense action all game long and units seem to get wasted so much faster and are a lot more fragile. It felt a lot like a TvZ to me, as far as "excitement" goes. One thing that I think a lot of people are neglecting are the maps. Blizzard maps are a lot smaller than Korean maps - this can be said for both SC1 and SC2. Even cross map positions in Lost Temple involves a VERY SHORT push distance, and if T and P are at 12 and 3 or 6 and 9, I wouldn't even call it a push. Positioning is a term that is also used in SC1 to refer to the angle of attack. It's very important in PvP, for instance, to make sure your dragoons are in front and your reavers are difficult to target. It is also important to have dragoons in an arc, and this applies to zerglings in ZvZ as well. While the units do move in to attack, having a nice starting position entering a battle is EXTREMELY useful, and this is what I think of when I think positioning. I guess it's just a matter of personal preference. I personally felt the most exciting part of an SC1 TvP was when Protoss actually engaged the Terran when P saw an opening to flank or attack. But because tanks are so strong a large portion of the match is - dare I say - a staring contest. TvT is ESPECIALLY bad for this, and while people say TvT is very strategically deep and requires insane positioning skills, I personally find it to be the most boring matchup for SC1. I personally like the mobility because it also increases the pace of the game a lot. A lot of the complaints I've heard from people come from the fact that Blizzard took out a lot of units that were critical in SC1 battles. Lurkers, defilers, medics, vultures, corsairs, reavers, to name a few. Personally, I am not looking to play Brood War with better graphics. I am looking to play SC2, and even though it has the Starcraft label on it I would want to feel like I am playing a NEW game. And so far I do feel like it's a new game. It's not COMPLETELY brand new, but the differences are huge, albeit not quite as huge as the difference between Warcraft II and Warcraft III. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
If you don't have anything useful to say besides bashing other people in an uncivilized manner, don't say anything at all. Also, taking a single comment I made out the context of everything I'm trying to point out and criticizing it (I am aware that the game is in beta and that things may change, I've stressed that repeatedly) is just a strawman fallacy. Is there a speed upgrade for the Warp Prism? I'm not sure. Anyway, it's a shame we don't see much use of the Warp Prism currently, but I think that's because players would MUCH rather make an Immortal or Colossus out of any Robotics Facilities they have simply because a core army of Stalkers and Zealots is not very strong. Honestly the Stalker is a unit that cannot pull its own weight in most any situation. Hellions don't lay mines, that's for sure. I've seen them used to harass mineral lines and they absolutely devastate workers if used properly. What sob3k was trying to say was that there isn't a unit that can quickly assert map control for Terran, but I'm not sure it's as necessary when the current mobility of the entire Terran force can assert map control anyway. I honestly think if Marauders were downplayed and Immortals' bonus damage was nerfed, we'd see better use of Terran armies holding their positions and making slower, but more strategic, pushes. More strategic, because a slower army will have to commit more to a movement than a mobile army would. Your argument that Colossus micro already has inherent positional value may be true, but is it really worth using it that way? Maybe it's useful for harassing expansions, but it would be put to much better use supporting the main Protoss army as Stalkers currently cannot do that themselves. The Shuttle/Reaver was quite good at going from harass to support especially with Shuttle Speed, and using it heavy depended on army formation. Perhaps we will see more use of the Warp Prism in this way in the future, but currently it's just not happening. Yes. It's beta. I know the game is going to change as people devise new strategies and begin to understand the game. What my concerns are is that perhaps problems with the game are foundational or procedural, like how a unit is designed and how it affects the overall mobility of the race, how it affects the mobility of the race it's up against, whether that's a good thing or not. Asserting map control is based upon how units move or how units are forced to move based on what the opponent can do with their units. If the problem is core, then it will take a long time to iron out. I've already said I might be wrong and that the game will develop on its own and be amazing in the end. I know it's still only beta. It's a dead issue. Don't bring it up again unless you have better insight into the fact that it's still beta. @ Kyo Yuy: For a very intense TvT watch Set 2 FBH vs. Flash: http://www.teamliquid.net/vods/?event=359 This is what I mean by the use of positioning and how if mobility is very limited positioning can become a very significant factor in strategic troop movement. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
It's a different game, and it may not be a bad thing if it plays differently  but I think it will and it doesn't look like there is a way to change that with the current units.And yeah I am well aware I could be proven totally and completely wrong. Game is new. But it would be nuts to expect everyone to withhold from posting impressions, especially during the beta when there still exists a (slim) chance to change things. This is what the beta is for (aside from balance) | ||
|
alexpnd
Canada1857 Posts
SC1: Marine single unit, firebat small splash, tanks splash explosive + setup time, vulture mine + speed but weak, vessel AoE bio etc. SC2: Marine is a marine, but with 2 armor upgrades? marauder single unit + bonus on armored? meh, reaper single unit + bonus on buildings, tank large splash, helion = vulture + firebat but no mines nor that speedy + expensive, thor = extra large marine + powered up single attack. k I could go on but the bottom line is that the units are convoluted into specialty/spell like attacks and not necessarily a method of attack. It's like in SC1 its pitting an archer vs a swordsmen at a medium distance. SC2 is, a mud fight. Don't get me wrong though, I have hope, and I still have fun. But I want more clarity in the game. | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
On March 01 2010 13:51 ComradeDover wrote: Well, if it isn't that, then the alternative is that you're just not thinking about what you're posting at all, and writing every half-baked thought that comes to mind. Let me go through a couple one by one: An expensive transport that doesn't have much health? Is that, like, the shuttle in SC1? Real underused, for sure. Why should they? They aren't vultures. Lots of units in SC2 don't lay mines, but this doesn't limit their positioning micro. Think of them as firebats on wheels. If you don't think firebats need a proper angle to maximize their effectiveness then you probably didn't utilize them very well in SC1 I like how you're making the argument that there isn't positional micro to be had while at the same time mentioning that Colossi are cliff-walkers which enables them to micro up and down positions with cliffs, and while also mentioning they have the long range attack to make the most of their positions. WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL WE'RE STILL IN BETA THE GAME IS NEW EVERYONE SUCKS AT IT STILL. While I'm not sure responding is really worth it, I'll give it a shot. I was referring to units which require or create static (or nearly static in the case of the reaver) positioning and setup to become effective (trading mobility for effectiveness). Something which I believe is lacking from SC2. I am not arguing that there is no micro in Sc2. I am not arguing that it does not matter where your units are in a battle. I understand there is plenty of in battle micro. What me and I believe the OP of this topic and several other people are trying to get at is that the vastly increased mobility of the units in SC2 is creating a deemphasis on terrain positioning, defense, and the splitting of forces. A good example of how lack of mobility puts greater emphasis on positioning/setup/defense is the difference between TvT and ZvZ in BW. In TvT the game plays very defensively and slowly due to mines and tanks both requiring setup time and remaining static in their most effective position (when I say vulture I am really mostly speaking of mines). The absolute other end of the spectrum is ZvZ where all the units have extreme mobility, the game is mostly about massing units in the right composition and decided by one or two large battles. The game ends quickly in ZvZ because it is far more advantageous to bring all of your units to the main battle to contribute than to leave them in a planned defensive position where they would be more effective. You don't see players in a TvT unsieging all their tanks and bringing them in to one huge battle, because the tanks are far more powerful sieged in a selected point. These games are extremes, most people do not enjoy TvT as much because the units are SOOO positionally and staticly strong, the game is too defensive and slow. Most people dislike ZvZ because the units are too mobile, the game is too fast and aggressive, the game is decided in one or two battles, DESPITE the fact that ZvZ is one of the MOST micro-intensive match-ups. A good game requires both mobility and static/positional units to make gameplay more entertaining and back and forth, making it better to leave units out of a main battle or set up a static defensive line that will not be able to move across the map and destroy the opponent. The lack of defensive, static, deployable units in Sc2 is, we feel, contributing to a playing experience a bit too much on the mobile side of the spectrum. I also understand that this is a new game, people DO need time to figure it out, I am simply discussing my current impression due to gameplay, streams, and the observable lack of units that seem to perform a static and defensive purpose. Just because the game is new doesn't mean we can't make observations and discuss it, just that we will have to adapt these theories as the game is figured out. | ||
|
TacticalPanda
United States37 Posts
In a more succinct form, this indicates that although players may achieve the same apm in SC2, the effectiveness of this APM greatly decreases with the lessening impact of the consequences of those actions. Since the macro requirements are so much more lax in SC2, more apm will be put into micro. As players become more and more efficient and quick with their actions, the skill gap must decrease because of the diminishing effect that each additional action will produce. Does anyone else see the possibility of the convergence of skill at the top, creating a nearly impossible environment for one or a group of gamers to win consistently for any period of time? The difference between the top Koreans is slim, but very evident. Their skill is very close, but it seems the top players are able to save a unit here and there, have better scouting throughout, and impeccable timing. When the “Oh Shit” moments happen, such as a huge mine drag, a massive reaver shot (or dodge), or anything else that just makes you say “That could mean the game right there;” it seems that these few top pros are always on the better end of that exchange. That’s why they’re on top, the slight awareness allows them to avoid a major catastrophe or put the hurt on in a huge way, maybe just once per game. But, that once per game can be translated to a win in most cases. In starcraft 2, not only were most units that allow massive damage in an instant removed, the extra time afforded by lack of other micro and macro will allow more players entrance to this upper echelon of players. The convergence of the effectiveness of actions as apms increase may end the prominence of players such as July, Boxer, and Flash; which will ultimately lead to the decline of starcraft as an E-sport. An extra mine laid or a well positioned lurker in the original will mean more than having a perfect versus imperfect concave in the sequel. (If you’re pushed to your max apm in SC1, there are still important things to micro/macro, in SC2 this probably will not be the case as players approach maximum effectiveness of apm. Let me know what you guys think of my thoughts =D (This is my first post ever, I’m kinda nervous =P) And, with that said, please don't discard everything I've said cause I'm a TL n00b! | ||
|
sob3k
United States7572 Posts
On March 01 2010 16:24 TacticalPanda wrote: It seems that many people are suggesting that the OP is denying the existence of micro in SC2, and they cite the necessity to set up good concaves, pull damaged units back, use spells effectively, and focus fire as evidence that micro remains a large part of starcraft. This is true (Mentioning spells is counter to their argument in this case, because they seem to be much harder to use effectively in the original). Micro is still in the game, but at a much reduced capacity. While this capacity will undoubtedly increase as the game develops, the top threshold is lower than in that of the original game. This is because all of those micro techniques were obviously a part of the original, in addition to all of the units that required a higher emphasis on positioning. As well as units that I call two click units (tanks must be sieged and then ordered to attack, lurkers must be positioned and then burrowed, vultures must be ordered to lay mines, shuttle/reaver is a multiple action combo, etc.). The absence of this type of unit creates a void in the contain/positioning component of the game. The argument is then made that having less necessary actions will cause an increase in the the smaller, more subtle placement and attack focuses of units. This is true, but these do not have the large, sometimes unpredictable sway that good micro produced in the original, and lent so much to the excitement factor of the game. A mistake in siege position of tanks, placement of mines, and failed reaver shots have a much larger effect on the outcome of a battle than simple focus fire, positioning and saving low health units that occurs in SC2 at the moment. In a more succinct form, this indicates that although players may achieve the same apm in SC2, the effectiveness of this APM greatly decreases with the lessening impact of the consequences of those actions. Since the macro requirements are so much more lax in SC2, more apm will be put into micro. As players become more and more efficient and quick with their actions, the skill gap must decrease because of the diminishing effect that each additional action will produce. Does anyone else see the possibility of the convergence of skill at the top, creating a nearly impossible environment for one or a group of gamers to win consistently for any period of time? The difference between the top Koreans is slim, but very evident. Their skill is very close, but it seems the top players are able to save a unit here and there, have better scouting throughout, and impeccable timing. When the “Oh Shit” moments happen, such as a huge mine drag, a massive reaver shot (or dodge), or anything else that just makes you say “That could mean the game right there;” it seems that these few top pros are always on the better end of that exchange. That’s why they’re on top, the slight awareness allows them to avoid a major catastrophe or put the hurt on in a huge way, maybe just once per game. But, that once per game can be translated to a win in most cases. In starcraft 2, not only were most units that allow massive damage in an instant removed, the extra time afforded by lack of other micro and macro will allow more players entrance to this upper echelon of players. The convergence of the effectiveness of actions as apms increase may end the prominence of players such as July, Boxer, and Flash; which will ultimately lead to the decline of starcraft as an E-sport. An extra mine laid or a well positioned lurker in the original will mean more than having a perfect versus imperfect concave in the sequel. (If you’re pushed to your max apm in SC1, there are still important things to micro/macro, in SC2 this probably will not be the case as players approach maximum effectiveness of apm. Let me know what you guys think of my thoughts =D (This is my first post ever, I’m kinda nervous =P) And, with that said, please don't discard everything I've said cause I'm a TL n00b! I don't think anyone is going to approach maximum effective apm in SC2. There is a shiiit-ton to do. I don't think the problem is massive damage units either, plenty of things still do ALOT of damage: Colossus DESTROY smaller units just as hard as reavers Ghosts Emp and cheap as hell nukes are both devastating Tanks still smash and just about everything hits harder than sc1 (hydras), and there are still devastating spells that can instantly change the course of a battle (force field, vortex,storm, HUNTER SEEKERS holy shit they raep) | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
For example, an uncontrolled group of Zealots will not nearly be as effective running into a minefield unless they are instructed to run directly into the Tanks, and the Zealots will get decimated without controlling the Dragoons and Psionic Storms at the same time. On the other side of the coin, the Siege Tanks would be destroyed if they are positioned poorly and they would stand no chance if there were no vultures to lay mines, to intercept the Dragoon attacks, and to kill off the Zealots. Note: realize that Zealots don't counter tanks because they do extra damage to armored, and Vultures are not counters to Zealots because they do extra damage to light. They are simply more effective against these units because of the nature of the Seige Tank's minimum range, and because of how each army functions and moves as a whole. They are counters in form, not just number. There is a sort of synergy within the respective armies towards how they move and how they function together to attack the opponent. I don't see the potential for this sort of massive control in Starcraft 2 if most units move/attack similarly and if units are designed with specific counters in mind. Granted, it's beta. Hopefully things will change to encourage more skilled and strategic troop movement. | ||
| ||
