On March 01 2010 20:09 Qeet wrote: people should really stop with the retarded "it's beta" excuse if it isn't fixed it will never be
Some things aren't meant to be fixed. SC2 is supposed to be a new game with a different mindset, and I don't think people should expect SC2 to be a carbon copy of SC1 with improved graphics.
A Warcraft III player once said in an interview that it won't necessarily be the WCIII or SC players who are the more dominant force in SC2. It's going to come down to the individual and who's better. I think that's the way it should be, as opposed to SC2 playing EXACTLY like SC1 so it basically becomes the same game with better graphics.
And as many have said, some of these issues aren't for Blizzard to fix. Strategical depth takes years and years to develop, not DAYS. People are expecting rigorous build orders and razor edge timings within only a week of the beta coming out, which is just way too much to expect IMO. Players like Louder and Nony have said that they CAN beat David Kim, but they need to catch up to his level of understanding of SC2 FIRST.
It IS a new game. Players WILL be able to find strategic depth out of it, and there WILL be other opportunities to do advanced micro similar to SC1. Blizzard shouldn't have to purposefully dumb down the user interface just so players can exploit THE SAME glitches from SC1 and play the game EXACTLY the same way so that SC2 is at the same level of understanding that SC1 is after ELEVEN years.
Did you know SC1 was going to have all this positioning and APM requirements back in 1999? Heck, people didn't even THINK about APM back then!
People who think SC2 lacks strategical depth need to look at SC1 back when it first came out and realistically ask themselves: "Did the game really seem to have that much potential back when it first came out? If not, can I really make conclusions about SC2 right now?"
It's not just balance patches, or changing the game. It's the map set, and the players. SC1 has a metagame, and so does SC2. SC2 is a NEW game, so the metagame has JUST STARTED developing. Trying to make assumptions about the potential of SC2 is like saying that Terran in SC1 is the weakest race because of a lack of mobility. Guess what? That's exactly what people said when SC1 first came out, and it stayed that way for years until Boxer showed people how to use Terran effectively.
People complained about lack of mobility in certain races when SC1 first came out, and now people are complaining there's too much mobility? ... It's a new game, give the PLAYERS time to make the game deep and meaningful, and don't try to theorycraft the game's potential. Theorycrafting tells us very little, as many of us know from the myriad of strategy forum posts for SC1.
Yes, but people are analyzing SC2 from a strategical approach from the start as opposed to SC1. After all, SC1 was only intended to be a casual game in development and SC2 was supposed to be designed with competition in mind. We already know what APM is, what micro/macro is, what timing is, what positional advantage is, so we already have a huge head start on developing the metagame in SC2. Therefore, the argument that strategical depth in SC2 cannot be commented on at the moment just because SC1 development started much later is pointless.
Besides, there aren't that many units combinations, finding them won't take long, and after that, it's just about finding the optimal play style and build orders. For example, in 2000, Terran used mech against Toss and bio against Zerg, in 2010, nothing has changed beyond the playstyle evolving from mainly 1 base play to mass macro play. If people find map control to be less important now, that's unlikely to change unless new units are introduced that encourage and enforce map control. However, that won't be because new strategies are found. SC1 Terran will never be as mobile as Toss, but Toss will never hold ground as well as Terran.
On March 02 2010 00:45 Mothxal wrote: That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
True, but there is a difference between feedback and player feedback. Player feedback comes from players. You know, the people who have actually played the game. Reading these forums, there are tons of good players from TL who have gotten the beta (Artosis, Nony, Amber[Light], Day[9], probably the entire staff) and their impressions are just the complete opposite of the impressions of non-players. The difference is literally between night and day.
On March 02 2010 00:45 Mothxal wrote: That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
At the same time, if Blizzard changed the game every time someone made a post that said "This needs to be changed," there would never be a final product because everyone wants a different game.
And if they made Brood War with improved graphics I think people would complain, ESPECIALLY casual players. Blizzard has a very wide customer base to appeal to. Obviously they want Starcraft II to succeed as an e-sport but it's not like they think ONLY the hardcore gamers and proscene matter. The game needs to draw casual players too both for enjoyment and profit reasons.
The fact of the matter is that the casual players would be far more interested in playing the campaign than venturing into competitive multiplayer. Obviously that's why Blizzard has compartmentalized the development of both modes. Their widespread request for feedback with this beta, aside from general playtesting, indicates their desire to foray into e-sports. So yes, I'd say that the opinions of the "hardcore gamers" at this stage are more valuable for balancing the units, races, and game mechanics. The casual gamers are mostly a non-issue, as the single player department can cater to them without having to worry about things such as balance.
Aside from the astounding lack of reading comprehension, what has annoyed me most throughout threads such as these are the people that say, "It's only a beta! When Brood War came out, nobody knew anything about how to play. It took years for people to understand the significance of macro, for example, so all of your opinions are invalid." Various ad homistrawmamajokexpletives removed for brevity.
What is downplayed is that while it took eleven years for BW to evolve to where it is today, we have the benefit of that experience going in to SC2. Yes, it's a new game and it's not a 1:1 transfer of knowledge, but it's also not entirely disparate. We are starting on much stronger footing this time around. Many mind-expanding tricks, techniques, and strategies have been added to the collective body of knowledge over the years from BW and other RTS games, so we have a general idea of where to start and what to look for. Adaptation and the emergence of a preliminary metagame will be rapid. What will happen from there on is the ironing out of the fine details.
All that to say that at the very least, our opinions should count for something. Tentative concerns shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as petty resistance to change.
Edit: Alas, I see that my main point has been pre-empted.
On March 02 2010 00:45 Mothxal wrote: That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
At the same time, if Blizzard changed the game every time someone made a post that said "This needs to be changed," there would never be a final product because everyone wants a different game.
And if they made Brood War with improved graphics I think people would complain, ESPECIALLY casual players. Blizzard has a very wide customer base to appeal to. Obviously they want Starcraft II to succeed as an e-sport but it's not like they think ONLY the hardcore gamers and proscene matter. The game needs to draw casual players too both for enjoyment and profit reasons.
The fact of the matter is that the casual players would be far more interested in playing the campaign than venturing into competitive multiplayer. Obviously that's why Blizzard has compartmentalized the development of both modes. Their widespread request for feedback with this beta, aside from general playtesting, indicates their desire to foray into e-sports. So yes, I'd say that the opinions of the "hardcore gamers" at this stage are more valuable for balancing the units, races, and game mechanics. The casual gamers are mostly a non-issue, as the single player department can cater to them without having to worry about things such as balance.
Aside from the astounding lack of reading comprehension, what has annoyed me most throughout threads such as these are the people that say, "It's only a beta! When Brood War came out, nobody knew anything about how to play. It took years for people to understand the significance of macro, for example, so all of your opinions are invalid." Various ad homistrawmamajokexpletives removed for brevity.
What is downplayed is that while it took eleven years for BW to evolve to where it is today, we have the benefit of that experience going in to SC2. Yes, it's a new game and it's not a 1:1 transfer of knowledge, but it's also not entirely disparate. We are starting on much stronger footing this time around. Many mind-expanding tricks, techniques, and strategies have been added to the collective body of knowledge over the years from BW and other RTS games, so we have a general idea of where to start and what to look for. Adaptation and the emergence of a preliminary metagame will be rapid. What will happen from there on is the ironing out of the fine details.
All that to say that at the very least, our opinions should count for something. Tentative concerns shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as petty resistance to change.
Edit: Alas, I see that my main point has been pre-empted.
Exactly. The casual player doesn't care about balance, only about flashy graphics and a good single player. If anything, the casual player will think any strategy that beats them are imbalanced so I don't think their opinion should count for very much on the subject of balance and mechanics. I remember some people on Battle.net complaining about zealots being too weak and needing buffs.
On March 02 2010 00:45 Mothxal wrote: That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
True, but there is a difference between feedback and player feedback. Player feedback comes from players. You know, the people who have actually played the game. Reading these forums, there are tons of good players from TL who have gotten the beta (Artosis, Nony, Amber[Light], Day[9], probably the entire staff) and their impressions are just the complete opposite of the impressions of non-players. The difference is literally between night and day.
Look. It's clear that what you're trying to say is that we are not credible enough to take seriously and that our opinions are unfounded. Yes, some of us have not played beta. I understand that we are limited in that respect. However, it's very clear that some things are better understood from a spectator's view. Otherwise, there would be no reason for watching replays for their strategic value. I have watched Day[9] analyze his own Starcraft 2 replays and I've watched people play on the streams, and I have had opportunities to mess around with the game first-hand. What I noticed was how armies could afford move around the map and how much pressure it put on both players to be very aggressive pushing their armies. Battles tended to be short, and unit composition was very important, but grappling to take position was largely undermined by how both armies were mobile enough, and strong enough to attack head-on. Instead of multiple styles of play we see uniform style of play. Why? Because armies are very mobile. Each race's army moves the same. Each unit moves the same way. It's not as exciting to watch because there is no build-up of tension, and it requires less forethought in static positioning.
Not going to bother replying to anyone's posts. Skipped most of it.
I agree with the OP. I haven't really seen any unit that requires what we saw in the original SC. Most of the battles in SC2 are comparable to archon/goon/zeal/templar armies in the original SC. Templar (spellcaster) requires micro, aka storm to fire, but other than that, there's not much positioning. Just A-move, compared to ZvT or something where you have to move back and forth to gain ground on the opposing player without dying, or PvT where you slowly crawl your way to your opponent. Basically, in PvT and ZvT, you do NOT engage because doing so would put you in a disadvantagous position. Instead, you try and wait for them to engage you most of the time. Either that or engage after setting yourself up in a good position to engage, like a flank.
Ppl who say " omg its only one week of beta you need more time for units to get figured out " its just so wrong.
The micro of sc is gone and you need to deal with it. There is no flanking no positioning no superb micro like killing lurks with marine medic surround and using mine drag to blow up 5 tanks with 1 zeal or just tons of micro techincs that makes sc best spectator game . Only micro you can do is grouping your army by unit types and just focus fire units that give you bonus damage. For example you group all your immortals and you focus them on siege tanks/roaches etc and not let them fire lings/zeals .
For now i have seen some vods of sc2 and the battles on ground is like air battles on sc all units clump together and who gets more units and best unit counters wins. As so much ppl compared sc2 battles to sc pvp battles is wrong because in pvp flanking positionig your army is really important and this is nonexistant in sc2.
This is moslty because its a new game and of the game engine which prevents the micro of sc to be used there is nothing to be invented because there is no room for that. Dunno why they leave out the flanking and positioning in army because i think that could be done
1) Map design. I am thinking mostly of Metalopolis for this one. The entire map is a big open area, there are no chokes so players are forced into giant ball vs ball armies. 2) High ground advantage. The advantage is only really apparent early game, once Observers, Overseers and air units of any sort enter the battle high ground doesn't really give any advantage. 3) Unit design. Colossus have 9 range... Immortals deal 50 damage and are pretty concentrated. Most units lack the ability to control terrain like Mines, Lurkers, Defilers did. Sentry is the exception to this and is a super sweet unit. 4) Pathing. Units can slip through small cracks incredibly quickly and move around the map in tight formations. No more Mutalisk control to snipe Marines as they trickle through choke points.
On March 02 2010 00:45 Mothxal wrote: That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
True, but there is a difference between feedback and player feedback. Player feedback comes from players. You know, the people who have actually played the game. Reading these forums, there are tons of good players from TL who have gotten the beta (Artosis, Nony, Amber[Light], Day[9], probably the entire staff) and their impressions are just the complete opposite of the impressions of non-players. The difference is literally between night and day.
Look. It's clear that what you're trying to say is that we are not credible enough to take seriously and that our opinions are unfounded. Yes, some of us have not played beta. I understand that we are limited in that respect. However, it's very clear that some things are better understood from a spectator's view. Otherwise, there would be no reason for watching replays for their strategic value. I have watched Day[9] analyze his own Starcraft 2 replays and I've watched people play on the streams, and I have had opportunities to mess around with the game first-hand. What I noticed was how armies could afford move around the map and how much pressure it put on both players to be very aggressive pushing their armies. Battles tended to be short, and unit composition was very important, but grappling to take position was largely undermined by how both armies were mobile enough, and strong enough to attack head-on. Instead of multiple styles of play we see uniform style of play. Why? Because armies are very mobile. Each race's army moves the same. Each unit moves the same way. It's not as exciting to watch because there is no build-up of tension, and it requires less forethought in static positioning.
The game's focus has changed compared to SC/BW. Part of the reason lurker/tank/spider mine positioning was vital in SC/BW was because of all the inaccessible spots in the game. If you block a choke, only air units and dropshipped units can get past the choke. Thus, it became a battle of two big ball of units slowly meeting in the middle.
Now, if you do that, colossi can walk over ledges and wreak havoc behind your tank/lurker lines. A single probe who sneaked in a pylon or a warp prism can warp an army behind your lines easily. Same thing with the Nydus. Or reapers. Or any of the sort of assorted units that can walk/rocket/blink over ledges. Even lifted off Terran buildings feel faster, or that may just be me.
SC1 to SC2 is almost like WW1 to WW2. The first game is all about trench warfare. The people caught in the Maginot line of thinking are easily blitzed in the second one.
Your WW1/WW2 analogy shows that you are stuck in thinking like the gamer, whose job is to figure out what works best given the units. Then you develop your focus based on the units you have. You have determined that Starcraft 2 has more possibilities in moving units around the map for every race and that how you play the game needs to take that into consideration.
What I and others on TL are asking is whether this new focus is good for the game or not. Certainly it's more fast-paced, but does that correlate into more entertainment value? Also, does this focus on mobility take away the intrinsic value of strategic positioning and large army control in favor of unit composition and small unit maneuvers? In many respects, this seems to be the case.
If you really want to compare this to war, then it's pretty obvious that movement of troops needs to be extremely strategic in order to pay off because they are not as mobile when compared to aircraft. However, the mobility and strength of aircraft is offset by their cost (Starcraft correlation: high cost or low hp so need for careful control, or both).
Now imagine if the all of the troops were as mobile as aircraft. What's the use of investing in aircraft if everything is mobile? Troop movement doesn't need to be as strategic and commited because they can cover much more ground much faster, and aircraft, which are naturally more mobile, lose their significance. This is what is happening in Starcraft 2. Ultra-mobile units are losing their significance because everything is becoming mobile. Hence, the need for cliff-jumping units and warp-in to make extreme mobility significant again.... which all goes back to making units even more mobile.
Just an aside, people keep saying that Sc2 gameplay is more focused on skirmishes everywhere while Sc1 was 2 huge balls attacking. This is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing, and it makes perfect sense why.
In BW, many units were stronger when static or left in a defensive position, thus, even when a battle would occur somewhere on the map, it would be better to leave them in their position, or impossible to get them into battle on time. This made battles more back and forth (all units wont die in one battle), and smallER than they would be with supermobile units.
In SC2, units are all mobile, if a large confrontation is coming, it is better to collect all of your units in a big "ball" to contribute, as they are not any more valuable in static defensive positions.
This is exactly what we see if you watch a "high level" Sc2 game: Here is a good example:
You will notice that whenever a battle occurs 100% of each players units are involved, there is literally not one unit waiting back defending. Reinforcements are warping directly into the battle.
compare this to any BW game. In BW armies will be split far more and "skirmishes" as opposed to all out confrontations are much more common, just as is predicted.
On March 02 2010 09:43 sob3k wrote: Just an aside, people keep saying that Sc2 gameplay is more focused on skirmishes everywhere while Sc1 was 2 huge balls attacking. This is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing, and it makes perfect sense why.
In BW, many units were stronger when static or left in a defensive position, thus, even when a battle would occur somewhere on the map, it would be better to leave them in their position, or impossible to get them into battle on time. This made battles more back and forth (all units wont die in one battle), and smallER than they would be with supermobile units. In SC2, units are all mobile, if a large confrontation is coming, it is better to collect all of your units in a big "ball" to contribute, as they are not any more valuable in static defensive positions.
This is exactly what we see if you watch a "high level" Sc2 game: Here is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x4QfxvOF-c You will notice that whenever a battle occurs 100% of each players units are involved, there is literally not one unit waiting back defending. Reinforcements are warping directly into the battle.
compare this to any BW game. In BW armies will be split far more and "skirmishes" as opposed to all out confrontations are much more common, just as is predicted.
Perhaps on one base play. Hardly any players are FE into macro games. The games where I do, strategic positioning defense units is incredibly important. If you can't hold your Expo's you are doomed, and you do not want to move all your troops to the fight, since you leave your expo's wide open to harassment. Trust me, until you play the game more hold off on such overarching synopsis.
High ground is extremely important. Throw up some marauders / marines / tanks and a few turrets and choke off the ramp and have patrol marines / turrets on the edges where drops/prism/nydus are most common.
I think it's absurd people are comparing one-two base play to 5-6 base play. STOP IT.
The rest is subjective. I happen to find WWII style warfare much more exciting to watch and take much more skill to pull off than the WW I style.
On March 02 2010 09:43 sob3k wrote: Just an aside, people keep saying that Sc2 gameplay is more focused on skirmishes everywhere while Sc1 was 2 huge balls attacking. This is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing, and it makes perfect sense why.
In BW, many units were stronger when static or left in a defensive position, thus, even when a battle would occur somewhere on the map, it would be better to leave them in their position, or impossible to get them into battle on time. This made battles more back and forth (all units wont die in one battle), and smallER than they would be with supermobile units. In SC2, units are all mobile, if a large confrontation is coming, it is better to collect all of your units in a big "ball" to contribute, as they are not any more valuable in static defensive positions.
This is exactly what we see if you watch a "high level" Sc2 game: Here is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x4QfxvOF-c You will notice that whenever a battle occurs 100% of each players units are involved, there is literally not one unit waiting back defending. Reinforcements are warping directly into the battle.
compare this to any BW game. In BW armies will be split far more and "skirmishes" as opposed to all out confrontations are much more common, just as is predicted.
Perhaps on one base play. Hardly any players are FE into macro games. The games where I do, strategic positioning defense units is incredibly important. If you can't hold your Expo's you are doomed, and you do not want to move all your troops to the fight, since you leave your expo's wide open to harassment. Trust me, until you play the game more hold off on such overarching synopsis.
High ground is extremely important. Throw up some marauders / marines / tanks and a few turrets and choke off the ramp and have patrol marines / turrets on the edges where drops/prism/nydus are most common.
I think it's absurd people are comparing one-two base play to 5-6 base play. STOP IT.
The rest is subjective. I happen to find WWII style warfare much more exciting to watch and take much more skill to pull off than the WW I style.
It's not the Reaper that makes Terran mobile. It's Infantry units and air units that are mobile. It's obvious that you haven't read the majority of the thread and possibly the original post either.
EPT
