I see a lot of posts and topics about unit balance and special abilities, and there have been a lot of people of the opinion that armies are A-moved and micro is less important. Perhaps the reason for all of these concerns are simply in how many units function in the larger army. What I'm saying is though a Roach, Hydralisk, and Ultralisk are all decidedly different units, they are all controlled similarly and they all move similarly. It's not their speeds that are important, but how they are controlled that is important.
What I'm saying is not that some units should be faster or slower, but I'm saying there's little incentive to micro units when the entire army moves and attacks as it should with an A-move. There is simply little variation in how units move or attack. Trying to give spellcasters interesting abilities and tweaking numbers like Patch 2 did is kind of dodging the problem of varied unit roles in the larger army.
Now I keep mentioning the larger army. There is just an overwhelming focus in making and balancing specialized units that it's kind of ridiculous. Compare a Roach/Hydralisk army to a Marine/Marauder army. How differently do they move? What is the function of each unit in the mix? Well, Roaches can take a lot of hits and Marauders can hit armored units hard. Marines and Hydralisks just deal damage at higher rates. I doubt either side will be compelled to control their armies any differently other than burrowing the odd Roach or retreating when it seems like they are losing. Why is that? Well, there is not much of a nessecity for large army control when every unit functions fine in a single A-moved control group. There's simply no tension watching battles unfold because they are over so quickly. Why? Everything moves to attack. Lurkers would have to be positioned first to attack, Seige Tanks would have to be positioned first to attack, Vulture mines would need to be well-positioned to be effective, Shuttle/Reaver would have to be controlled well to be effective, Mutalisks must find good positions to be effective, Carriers need to be positioned well to be effective, and Medic/Marine needs to be controlled well to be effective. There are LARGE returns in SC1 that are to be had from superior army control that are diminished in SC2 because most armies move to attack.
I'm not being nostalgic. I'm trying to examine how units function in SC1 in the context of the larger army and why they work well together. Lurker/Ling requires good positioning of Lurkers or this unit mix is very ineffective. Positioning is key because they cannot be A-moved then told to burrow into a Medic/Marine army. So how do Zerglings function then? Then provide cover for the Lurkers to move into position, because Medic/Marine cannot target Lurkers and Zerglings at the same time without dying. It drastically changes how armies need to be controlled and increases the importance of army positioning. There is tension because a single slip can cause the battle to be won on either side. There is tension because of this fact, and there is depth in army control and positioning because of this. Roach regeneration does not do this, Stalker blink does not do this, and increasingly Seige Tanks cannot even do this because of the Immortal and Colossus. Rather, they destroy the importance of army control BECAUSE of their mobility (Not the Seige Tank, but the Immortal and Colossus). Hard counters and "imba" units are fine if they require good micro and/or good positioning to be effective. Cute gimmicks like Reaper raiding and Colossus climbing and Storm dropping and Dropship harassing may work here and there, but it's an army composition that requires good control due to how units in that army or the opposing army function that will make SC2 a more dynamic micro-intensive game. Enough focus on unit vs. unit hard-counters. Starcraft 2 is an army vs. army game, let's have some interesting army dynamics, not just interesting counters.
I don't want a disscussion about how this is not Starcraft 1 or how units should be changed. Instead, I want a discussion of how units' focuses or functions relate to the rest of the army. Or you can call me out on the things I said. That's cool too
On February 28 2010 13:25 Spartan wrote: More unit "attack mobility" means more micro?
Did you even read his post?
He is speaking of something like 1a2a3a syndrome, only with every race rather than just protoss. There aren't things like lurkers and tanks(which arent a staple unit from what ive been reading) which need good positioning and preparation to work.
Can anyone even come up with a good example of an SC2 unit that takes as much micro as a lurker, a shuttle/reaver combo, or vultures with spider mines?
On February 28 2010 13:31 father_mitch wrote: Can anyone even come up with a good example of an SC2 unit that takes as much micro as a lurker, a shuttle/reaver combo, or vultures with spider mines?
Edit: And spellcasters don't count.
It's still in beta, so its hard to assume what units will be the micro intensive ones.
On February 28 2010 13:25 Spartan wrote: More unit "attack mobility" means more micro?
Did you even read his post?
He is speaking of something like 1a2a3a syndrome, only with every race rather than just protoss. There aren't things like lurkers and tanks(which arent a staple unit from what ive been reading) which need good positioning and preparation to work.
Admittedly I didn't read all of it because I got a tad annoyed with all the random bolding. I'm not sure why people are saying tanks aren't a staple unit. I've found them to be very crucial in many of my games. From many of my games played I've also still found unit position existent. Sure there's no "mode/stationary" specific position, like having a burrowed lurker, but it's still just as important as SC1 to micro manage your units and their positions in your attack. Why would you do 1a2a3a with an army that had your sentry in it. You'd obviously position it in the back. What this OP is talking about really isn't a big deal. It isn't as if organizing your attacks is less important in the game, I really haven't seen that that much at all. Of course if the enemy has an army 5x the size of mine they don't need to worry about positioning/organizing their units.
Aside from direct unit-specific positioning, the game has added the "can't see up cliffs anymore" gimmick which implements map positioning of ranged units on top of key chokes/cliffs. To me that makes elevations in the game that much more important than in SC1.
not bothering to read what you've written i came to miss how in SC1 it required much more skill micro/macro wise
one example i saw today was scouting vs zerg when scouting them with a worker the zerglings kill scouting workers too easily not requiring any micro to hit them
Yeah, I definitely agree with this to an extent. I really don't think Blizzard should create units with what it counters in mind, but instead focus on how works within the army itself in certain situations. I'm not sure if it's too late to completely re-do units though, maybe change the abilities of the current units now.
Also, perhaps we just don't know how to use SC2 units effectively at the moment. Once we find the perfect army compositions in each match up, then micro should become more important.
Beta has been out for A Single Week. It may happen that terran Needs Seige tanks/turrets/bunkers/salvage to push across a map. It may also be that protoss will need their super-slow-moving mother-ship's cloak and abilities to win a game. And that zerg will be the mobile attack-moving army that casts fungle growth and out-swarms(with units) to win the game. It may seem like a-moving armies is the -best- way right now, because its effective. And things could change rather quickly.
It seems to me that the op is laboring under the assumption that every player participating in beta has perfected SC2 micro/macro as a whole. The fact is, when BW came out, people weren't instantly doing 3base lurkerling contain against protoss rushing to hive to get defilers so swarm can break their cannon line. It took years of gamers playing off each other's strategies, developing metagame, slowly taking advantage of how certain units can be micro'd. For example, a new trick that started out with roaches for example, a roach gets below 50% health, it gets burrowed, and pushed to the rear of the opponents ball. once a collection of roaches gathers, they unburrow and form a surround on the army with fully healed roaches. This is much more effective than simply A-moving, it's just not enough people have thought of this, seen this, and even if they have, maybe they're just focused on developing their macromechanics first, because that is in fact the foundation of strategy, and beta has been out for a week.
On February 28 2010 14:48 geegee1 wrote: well hope blizzard decides to put some units on protoss that isnt as mobile then
or slow down the colossus... (alot). I saw response use the warp prism with collosus kind of like a reaver. Looked pretty baller, and slowing it down would make people use that kind of stuff more.
I bolded parts of my post for people who don't bother to read and simply skim the post (SevenAteNine). Sorry if it was annoying (Spartan).
I'm not trying to say that SC2 lacks micro. Stropheum's Roach micro example is an indication of that. What I'm trying to say is that it seems like certain units in Starcraft 2 don't contribute anything to making battles more dynamic. Yes, beta has only been out for a week, but that doesn't address whether the units themselves are designed to improve dynamic play.
The case is that units like the Colossus or Immortal destroy things without much micro commitment. Stalkers are much too weak currently, and I don't know if Blizzard intends to change them because they become very very mobile later in the game and would become too strong because of it. Thus, the balance of power in a Protoss army leans towards the Robotics Facility and Stargate units, and every other race is forced to deal with it. Hence, Zerg gets the buffed Roach and Terran gets buffed Starport units.
This would fix it by numbers, but all it does is introduce some hard counter units without considering that maybe changing how certain units work would remove the need for counters and instead rely on the player's ability to deal with those units. Alternatively, maybe they could change something that requires the player using those units to be able to control them properly. This would promote dynamic play.
On February 28 2010 14:10 Stropheum wrote: It seems to me that the op is laboring under the assumption that every player participating in beta has perfected SC2 micro/macro as a whole. The fact is, when BW came out, people weren't instantly doing 3base lurkerling contain against protoss rushing to hive to get defilers so swarm can break their cannon line. It took years of gamers playing off each other's strategies, developing metagame, slowly taking advantage of how certain units can be micro'd. For example, a new trick that started out with roaches for example, a roach gets below 50% health, it gets burrowed, and pushed to the rear of the opponents ball. once a collection of roaches gathers, they unburrow and form a surround on the army with fully healed roaches. This is much more effective than simply A-moving, it's just not enough people have thought of this, seen this, and even if they have, maybe they're just focused on developing their macromechanics first, because that is in fact the foundation of strategy, and beta has been out for a week.
I understand where you are coming from. Kind of the whole Rome wasn't built in a day thing, and neither was the current SC metagame that we enjoy so much. I think what he is speculating about is the lack of actual units that show even the potential to need the level of micro that we see with lurkers, vultures, reavers, etc in SC:BW.
You did point out one thing. Roaches weak regeneration micro which seems pretty cool, but it doesn't truly involve much effort if you think about it. I haven;t watched much SCII but from what I gather roach's tank hits and heal really fast, meaning its probably easy to micro them out. In a middle sized battle chances are you probably have a little longer to do that then lets say split your marines perfectly around lurkers while scanning and target firing the lurker that was placed slightly out of position then retreating or continuing your attack.
Then on the other side you have the Zerg who has to rush in with his lurkers get good burrowing angles to reduce the Terran's room to spread his attack and kill it while preserving his lings to give him the ability to move forward.
Now all of this has to be done while making workers, telling them to mine, teching probably, building stuff on time and macroing off however many hatcheries/barracks you have.
In SCII once again you just multiselect buildings and tell them to produce, workers auto gather, and seemingly the units require less micro than in its predecessor. I am not trying to derail this into an "MBS sucks" fight, I don't really care about that and most of us have made peace with that and mass selection. However when you combine that with the lacking the need for true unit control in battle it seems like it wouldn't be as entertaining or require the same level of skill as SC currently does.
I do agree it is probably too early to tell and I will say I haven't watched enough to have a fully formed opinion yet. When I get Beta I will happily write a shitton about this.
i know this is going to sound a bit weird and it's only been a few weeks so these are just first impressions but it seems like there's not enough down time in sc2. perhaps that's not the right word for it but sc2 really requires you to doing something with your army at all times. you cant really park it in the middle of the map and hold territory unless you surround your base with static defense. there's always that threat of a fleet of medivacs, warp prism, or nydus worm popping up in your main that really splits your attention or at least nags you enough to bring your army back home if you are not actively pushing. i think a lot of the complaints made in the OP are a result of this. you can't just hold ground anymore and after playing sc where literal map control was very important this change is kind of jarring.
another contributor is of course the removal of units like the lurker, vulture, and the ineffectiveness of siege tanks (arguable). high face damage units like these will always hold ground because no one wants to poke and prod at them while they're setup but there's a certain risk / reward involved during the setup time, if you can pick off a few tanks or lurkers before they're ready to attack you end up doing damage without having to take part in a massive battle that involves both armies. the one unit i think that works for holding ground in sc2 is the colossus and it's very effective at it whereas no other race has an equivalent unit that deals tons of damage over a line of units holding ground but this unit has no setup time so it's no good to stick around when you cant win the fight anyway.
also, another factor could be that most sc2 units really are capable of just attack moving into each other (aside from siege tanks) i mean aside from minimizing damage with pulling some units back what's there to do? you dont have to burrow, you dont have to draw mines with zealots, you don't have to lay mines, or prevent vessels from being sniped. it seems like as long as you have a decent unit combo and aren't attack moving into hard counters or watching your units die to splash units, you'll usually come out just about even.
it seems like someone at blizzard played one too many micro ums maps and forgot that the one thing that made sc a successful spectator game was the suspense of action and not constant action. it was seeing 5 lurkers borrow and 24 marines explode, zealots dragging mines headstrong into tanks, scourge chasing and hitting vessels, massive terran siege pushes, or just in time darkswarms that really make those OMFG I CANT BELIEVE HE JUST DID THAT moments.
oh yeah. also when you lose a small battle your running back, allllll the way back because units are so mobile and can attack move and be effective so there's none of that push delaying going on either.
dunno if i went on some incomprehensible tangent or not. :O
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.
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 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.
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 21:04 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 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: 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
We are not psychoanalysts. We are not here to "pinpoint whence the negative emotions fueling our hate and disgust for Starcraft 2 originates". We are here to discuss how a game we care about can be improved, not to point fingers or label people as prejudiced and fearful of change and promote the free-minded, liberal half. It's not fucking politics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I personally enjoy watching SC2 high level games a lot.
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.
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.
I'm right there with you OP. I too know it's only a beta and things will change (though people always overstate how much a game will change after beta), and people will come to play it better etc. I just worry about fundamental aspects of the game like you mention. No units that need to be put in position ahead of time, they can all just move and attack. No lurkers that need to be positioned just right, de-emphasized tanks, no slow reaver that needs to be shuttled around, no mines to lay, no reason to hold any ground aside from your bases. You can move out whenever you feel your army is composed right, as everything is totally effective on the move.
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)
I agree with so many posts here it's ridiculous. The part that really hit the nail on the head for me was when someone mentioned STYLE of ATTACK.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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)
TacticalPanda might have extrapolated a bit with the whole Progamer example but he basically understands alot of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just an APM allocation issue, it's also the way units are designed makes them very free to move about the map. Skills like Psionic Storm, Fungal Growth, and Hunter Seeker, Forcefield, and Vortex are all spells that force movement and therefore good army control, but I don't see many units designed in a way that relies on good army control to be effective. This is the reason armies move similarly and this is the reason that most battles are groups of mobile units clashing. Then it's a frenzy of focusing down counters and countering counter units. This is a result of having hard-coded numerical counters built into the game. Not many battles are decided by complex army control. Instead, they are decided by using the right units. What I'm advocating is making the units that are counters (in form, not just in bonus damage) also have to be controlled correctly to be effective.
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.
On March 01 2010 17:13 LunarC wrote: TacticalPanda might have extrapolated a bit with the whole Progamer example but he basically understands alot of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just an APM allocation issue, it's also the way units are designed makes them very free to move about the map. Skills like Psionic Storm, Fungal Growth, and Hunter Seeker, Forcefield, and Vortex are all spells that force movement and therefore good army control, but I don't see many units designed in a way that relies on good army control to be effective. This is the reason armies move similarly and this is the reason that most battles are groups of mobile units clashing. Then it's a frenzy of focusing down counters and countering counter units. This is a result of having hard-coded numerical counters built into the game. Not many battles are decided by complex army control. Instead, they are decided by using the right units. What I'm advocating is making the units that are counters (in form, not just in bonus damage) also have to be controlled correctly to be effective.
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 counter 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. We've already established that.
Who says you can't drag a HSK into the enemy? Does anyone know what happens to the HSK if the unit it was targeted at gets killed? Similarly, there are a lot of hard counters in SC I also.
In SC II Marines do not hard counter Colossus, but with awesome micro you can easily down a Colossus with Marines. Likewise, Hydra's aren't really a direct hard counter to anything, but they are impressive motherfuckers. Do not ever let them reach critical mass lol. Same goes with Zerglings, and most of Zerg units.
Same goes with Stalkers against any unit. OMG, can Protoss abuse the shit out of blink and rape their direct counters (Immortals are a little tougher, but definitely doable with Terrain abuse, and smart blink use).
As for lurkers, banelings fill this niche. You can easily hold a position with these guys. I've yet to see anyone exploit the use of detonating underground though....That's just a small part. Most of these things right now aren't even being utilized to 15% of their capacity because the game is in its infancy.
I think with the direction the game is going now, that unit composition is a little important, but what is far more important is your micro in battle. Wait until you see some Medivac abuse since Medivacs can heal units inside their bay. Boxers invincible marines anyone? :p
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)
Please give a few examples of "a shiiit-ton to do" at 400 apm. Okay, that's not quite fair, I know that we really don't know how much that would be in terms of SC2. But, I'm talking about the highest of pros, for the E-gaming scene. I think that it is an absolute certainty that the pro's will be able to approach a critical apm, where actions beyond that point become increasingly less useful. In the original this level is ridiculously out of reach because of the pathing, interface, and the more heavily micro-able units. In the new game the pathing and interface are no longer problems, and few units require any individual action. (I sincerely hope that I am wrong though!!! I'm just stating my opinion like the rest of us.)
I really do think that having more micro intensive units is a must. While a-moving will not be the most efficient use of units, it is ridiculously more effective than in the original. Any unit that was used for map control and containment has been removed, with the exception of the siege tank. Which, based on what seems to be the prevailing opinion, is much less viable. The lurker, siege tank, vulture, and reaver (can't leave your base if you're gonna get dropped.) all kept your opponent contained and gave you map control. If your opponent a-moved out, it was gg. On the other hand, in SC2,once you have the magic army composition to counter whatever your opponent is containing you with, all you need to do now, is a-move out of your base with minimal micro.
And yes, devastating spells are still in the game, but the colossi is the only really devastating unit. (Maybe the ultralisk is now, too? I haven't seen one used for real in a replay yet =[ Which is extremely disappointing.) But spells hardly take any micro in comparison to the old game.
I was thinking about hunter seekers, and while they are extremely easy to cast, dodging is quite difficult. I haven't seen the ability used, but I'm assuming that the fungal thing on the infester is similar, storming has always been this way. Maybe this is where some micro can be returned. Instead of the main emphasis being on casting abilities, the awareness and ability to dodge spells may be the new key. Now that it is much easier to cast spells, the only defense against that would be to dodge/predict these! Storm dodging never did make those Korean girls scream like a massive coat of storms across the stream, but maybe this can become the new norm.
Although the OP is being accused of essentially being closed-minded and trapped in an old, irrelevant SC1 way of thinking, I think the people who need loosen up a little are the ones here who are automatically opposing constructive criticism solely for the sake of doing so.
If someone expresses a detailed concern about the direction the gameplay will take in higher level play in the future, and thoroughly explains why, it's inappropriate to just scream that the game can't be criticised because it's only been out for a week, nobody could possibly be that good at it yet, and because it's not supposed to be the same as Starcraft 1 anyway. The last argument is particularly invalid because the game IS supposed to be like SC1 to a large extent - I think we all agree that we want them to be similar to some degree, and the key is determining where they should differ.
All I see in the OP is a legitimate concern, which I agree with in principle, that positional play may become less important in SC2, due to the lack of certain types of units. Most of us probably agree that positional aspects of play are something we'd like to see carried over to the next game.
Personally, I think another potential problem for thoughtful positioning is the fact that units of the same faction will now just push each other out of the way when moving through each other - you now don't need to be nearly as careful about how you organise your army. In Starcraft 1, for example, you really need to have your zealots ahead of your dragoons in your army formation, so that when battle happens, your zealots don't waste time being stuck behind goons, and your army can operate at maximum efficiency. In SC2, it really doesn't matter as much because the zealots would just push their way through and squeeze though the goons anyway (which I think increases the feeling I've heard from people that armies feel like clumpy, amorphous "blobs").
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.
I don't totally agree that Macro APM is really less in SC2 (constantly having to cast spells at all of your CC/Nex/Hatches?), but your point about effectiveness is important, and I think we have to look at APM a little more objectively. Yes, we want the game to be mechanically challenging, but I think we all agree that the APM required for things like siege/unsiege, mines, small but vital army positioning adjustments, burrows, etc, are far more healthy and desirable than, say, if we decided that SC2 didn't have enough APM so we introduced a mechanic where if you don't click a certain building every 3 seconds then you lose money.
This latter kind of APM is really sort of "garbage" APM compared to the former - it's doesn't actually improve the game to force players to remember to mindlessly click something all the time. Some of it is OK, but overall we'd all like to see the game require more meaningful actions. An analogy I might use for this (and it's a stretch), is the idea of jobs in an economy, for example. We all want there to be lots of jobs, but having the government tax money from people and then pay some of those same people to build a pointless bridge connecting two uninhabited islands doesn't actually help anybody in the long run, and is actually a waste of money, despite the fact that it does technically "create" more jobs.
TacticalPanda might have extrapolated a bit with the whole Progamer example but he basically understands alot of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just an APM allocation issue, it's also the way units are designed makes them very free to move about the map.
I did get a little carried away with the Progamer stuff didn't I? I do totally agree with the movement and positioning points you have. And the counters in form, not just damage buffs. That's some high quality stuff you've got going on =]
Before the beta, I was never worried about the apm requirements being too low. Now with the removal of apm-intensive units, I am worried that this is a possibility. But, he more I think about it, the more it seems that units with spells and abilities may begin to fill that void. There are definitely more of them. And is it just me, or does mana seem to regen faster? I was watching some videos, and I was overwhelmed by the amount of spells being used.
Another important note, is that if there is in fact a "critical apm," it won't matter nearly as much for at least a few years, when build orders and tactics are pretty much set, and both players are playing as optimally as possible. For now, strategy and tactics rule supreme, what an exciting time for SC, eh?
On March 01 2010 17:25 Rothbardian wrote: Who says you can't drag a HSK into the enemy? Does anyone know what happens to the HSK if the unit it was targeted at gets killed? Similarly, there are a lot of hard counters in SC I also.
You can target your own units with HSK. So if you REALLY wanted you could cloak a ghost and have an HSK chase it around until you get near enemies and then and then stop moving...
When the unit the HSK is chasing dies the HSK just continues to the unit's position when it died and blows up there
@ TacticalPanda: Um, I suggest watching some FPVods of some SC1 progamers. Not a lot of actual APM is put into useful actions until mid late-game and a lot of that is cycling through control groups, making units, expanding. Then again, they can execute fine army control and have almost complete control over their units, which is possible because of the complexity of different units' movements. Anyway, the effective apm of progamers generally tends to be around 200. Also, watch some FPVods of high level SC2 games and try to pinpoint how they distribute their APM, how they move their troops, how they decide to tech or expand, which units they decide to make, and how effective their control really is on the outcome of battles. Then try to think of alternatives they could have used and how better control might have changed the outcome of a battle. It'll give you a much better sense of how the game actually works.
This idea of "critical apm" is theoretically possible, but pactically impossible in my opinion. Progamers aren't machines you know...
Personally, I think another big potential threat to thoughtful positioning is the fact that units of the same faction will push each other out of the way when moving through each other - you now have to be way less careful about how you organise your army. In Starcraft 1 for example, you really need to have your zealots ahead of your dragoons in your army formation, so that when battle happens, your zealots don't waste time being stuck behind goons, and your army can operate at maximum efficiency. In SC2, it really doesn't matter as much because the zealots would just push their way through and squeeze though the goons anyway, which I think increases the feeling I've heard from people that armies feel like clumpy, amorphous "blobs".
This is an extremely important concern that I didn't address. I think that it's becoming more and more evident as the beta goes on that it does not suffice to throw all your units into one hotkey group. While the original game required the different groups because of interface limits, the sequel should "require" separate groups to keep your army in the most optimal attack formation. If the units can stop running past one another, this would make it even more important. Bravo, for bringing this up in this thread. I was concerned about it for other reasons, such as wall offs, but it really would make a huge difference in the way armies are controlled.
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)
Please give a few examples of "a shiiit-ton to do" at 400 apm. Okay, that's not quite fair, I know that we really don't know how much that would be in terms of SC2. But, I'm talking about the highest of pros, for the E-gaming scene. I think that it is an absolute certainty that the pro's will be able to approach a critical apm, where actions beyond that point become increasingly less useful. In the original this level is ridiculously out of reach because of the pathing, interface, and the more heavily micro-able units. In the new game the pathing and interface are no longer problems, and few units require any individual action. (I sincerely hope that I am wrong though!!! I'm just stating my opinion like the rest of us.)
I really do think that having more micro intensive units is a must. While a-moving will not be the most efficient use of units, it is ridiculously more effective than in the original. Any unit that was used for map control and containment has been removed, with the exception of the siege tank. Which, based on what seems to be the prevailing opinion, is much less viable. The lurker, siege tank, vulture, and reaver (can't leave your base if you're gonna get dropped.) all kept your opponent contained and gave you map control. If your opponent a-moved out, it was gg. On the other hand, in SC2,once you have the magic army composition to counter whatever your opponent is containing you with, all you need to do now, is a-move out of your base with minimal micro.
And yes, devastating spells are still in the game, but the colossi is the only really devastating unit. (Maybe the ultralisk is now, too? I haven't seen one used for real in a replay yet =[ Which is extremely disappointing.) But spells hardly take any micro in comparison to the old game.
I was thinking about hunter seekers, and while they are extremely easy to cast, dodging is quite difficult. I haven't seen the ability used, but I'm assuming that the fungal thing on the infester is similar, storming has always been this way. Maybe this is where some micro can be returned. Instead of the main emphasis being on casting abilities, the awareness and ability to dodge spells may be the new key. Now that it is much easier to cast spells, the only defense against that would be to dodge/predict these! Storm dodging never did make those Korean girls scream like a massive coat of storms across the stream, but maybe this can become the new norm.
Let me just talk about this for a second. There will be a new SC II skill the inverse of the SC I skill. Since the pathing is so good now, and there are units that deal a lot of AoE damage, more people will be purposelly using hotkeys to keep small groups of units controlled in battle to keep them from clumping. This is no different than the skill in SC I where you have to be watchful of your units and attend them because the AI and pathing is so horrible.
I assure you, the APM required to play a "critical" or "perfect" game in SC II is so far out of reach its not even funny. Try going 5-6 base vs 5-6 base and keep up with macro and micro even at 400 APM. It's impossible. Take note that 400 APM in BW is equivalent to about 270-290 APM in SC II (Their counter).
As for not many individual units to micro....you are wrong there also. HT/Ghost/Infester/Colossus/Tanks/Banelings/Stalkers/Medivacs/Warp Prisms/etc. Not to mention Marines. In regards, to A-Move being efficient...that is ludicrous. A-moving into an army being micro'd will result in the enemy hardly losing anything, and you losing everything. That is devastating and anything, but efficient. I know this, since I've been there before lol.
Colossus can easily control map. Abusing the cliff mechanic...so can the Nydus Worm, Warp Prism, and banelings.
The game has only been out for two weeks. BW has been played for 13 years, of course they will know and use every little intricacy. You can't expect a new game to be at the level of BW, nor was BW, what it is now 2 weeks into its beta.
I understand that we each have our subjective differences in taste, but I truly believe that SC II has a far higher skill ceiling than SC I.
To address your point: First, have you played the beta? It is pretty ridiculous to think people will be even APPROACHING critical APM in the game, as it is with nearly all rts's. People get 150 apm playing HON, with one unit....
There just as many units with extreme capacity to micro as in SC1. All ranged units can be microed just like goons in sc1, Hellions can kite slower units just like a vulture, as can reapers with cliffwalk, blink has infinite micro capacity, sentries are absolutely micro factories, and drop micro is even more crazy with medivac healing as has already been mentioned.
When you complain about "devastating units" being removed, only the lurker and vulture have (colossus replacing reaver), and there have been many "devastating" things added (whether they are abilities or not really doesn't matter from a gameplay sense).
So, I don't believe either of these things is a problem with SC2, I DO believe there is a problem though, and it relates exactly to the units you mentioned (which incidentally don't require much micro at all once set up). I expressed my opinion a few posts back, I don't know if you read, it so here it is again:
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.
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.
The problem is not the capacity for massive damage (plenty of that) The problem is not that micro is dead. The problem, as the OP stated, is too much mobility.
Okay, I've played around 100 games in the beta so far. I think saying that you can a+move units and be successful is a gross exaggeration -- focus fire is incredibly important, as it always has been, and being able to control many smaller squads to focus fire down many of their troops instead of just one massive army will still give you an insanely awesome advantage. If you just a+move they'll each pick a different target and you'll fail miserably, it's a really, really, REALLY huge difference.
There's still tons of room for micro. Honestly I'm surprised that you guys remember lurkers and tanks as the epitome of micro, they're units that *I* personally remember massing the crap out of and basically not having to worry about them as much as things like mutas, dragoons, etc...
There's also a lot more troop balance required, and with that comes troop positioning -- marauders in front of your marines, roaches in front of your hydras, lings attacking the armor while the roaches attack the infantry, etc... there's still such a huge advantage from having amazing micro.
But it really depends on the game length of SC2. It will be critical whether the games usually end with players usually only have taken their natural, or if the average game will last much longer than that. Hopefully it is a balance similar to the original, because I think that is about as close to optimum for an average game time, with great opportunity for some long nail biters. I think that off of 2 bases that "critical apm" may be reached. And by critical apm, I am in no way saying perfect starcraft. Just that each additional action will yield diminishing returns. At the very least, the stage at the beginning of the game, where just about every unit can be handled perfectly will be extended significantly.
But, I think you're right that at later tech, the skill ceiling will be huge, but it seems that the lower tier units at the moment are quite bland in their current rock/paper/scissorish nature. I guess that now I just hope that the early/early-mid game can keep the excitement of the original!
Edit:
Okay, I officially give in now. I think it's just been too long since I've actually played, starting to take for granted all the shit that really is going on all the time. You guys made some very valid points! Still agree with the lack of static/defense type units and the ridiculous mobility of everything.
What I was thinking about the game and what I had actually been seeing of it, weren't quite lining up. I just should've bit my tongue for a day and thought about it for a while. I don't mind being wrong though, when it means SC2 is still a pretty baller game!
@ filthi: Sorry if it sounds like we think armies can be A-moved. Maybe the original post sounded that way, and I think I've refined my idea of what needs to be changed since then.
Your idea of troop positioning is exactly what Rothbardian (I think) was referring to when he talked about "mobile positioning" as opposed to static positioning. No, Lurkers and Tanks are not the epitome of micro, they are the epitome of strategic positional play, or "static positioning" I suppose. Mutalisks and Dragoons are very mobile units, the kind of which it seems like Starcraft 2 is full of.
However, it was the static but extremely powerful units combined with more mobile units that forced the usually more mobile opposition to have to engage carefully and exploit their mobility to gain map control. For the more static army it was a battle for map control using strategic static points. Defilers were a unique unit in that were literally able to create strategic static points to move units towards. High Templar were a unique unit in their ability to turn these static points into very dangerous positions. Also, Arbiters were units that were able to poke holes into strategically placed static units and were able to bypass those units completely.
Why does Zerg exert map control with hydralisks in ZvP? Because they are very mobile and strong in numbers. Why does Protoss attempt to break/delay the attack? Because once High Templar are out, Protoss gains the ability to not only kill masses of hydralisks, but also to deny them good positioning. In TvZ, mm is a very mobile force that is difficult to deal with. So, Mutalisks are used as even more mobile units to prevent the Terran from moving out. Lurkers are used to gain further positional advantage. They exert control over static locations of the map, preventing the mobile Terran force from running around the map.
Now with the overabundance of mobile units, it seems like static positional control has been downplayed because those limitations of movement don't apply to any of the races. Most of the special abilities that deal with location control are with the Protoss (Psionic Storm, Force Field, Vortex, Mass Recall). There are no Zerg units that can exert location control (I'd say creep is the major kind of location control for Zerg). Terran still has the Siege Tank and Bunker, but now there are so many ways to break Tanks and most kinds of static units that are crucial for location control (especially without spider mines) that it's much more benefical to use a highly mobile force and use Siege Tanks primarily as temporary heavy artillery while keeping the entire army moving. This overall mobility creates shorter, more intense battles with less emphasis on exerting control over a location and more emphasis on the micro at hand. So, shorter, faster paced battles are more common.
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.
Well, it is true that over time the game will become more interesting. Even without patches gameplay has improved and changed in SC/WC3 and also with SC:BW, TFT and subsequent patches the game was improved so much you can't reasonably expect that the current beta build is conclusive evidence.
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?
There's a subtle difference between a concept like map control and something like "usefulness of micro" though. Players will always strive to be better at micro and even if the gains are small, they will eventually become important enough that you can by then say "SC2 requires heavy micro.", but map control is more arcane, more influenced by design, imo, and it's something to post about if you think it's very much lacking.
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.
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
You know what's wrong with the forums nowadays? 90%+ of the people with complaints don't have the beta. Show me a post with somebody who's complaining there isn't enough to do in SC2 and I will bet you immediately they don't have a beta key. Just about all these type of threads are prefaced with "I don't have the beta". People who have actually played the game know that adding MBS and auto-mine and unlimited group selection doesn't mean there's nothing for players to do.
There are tons of stuff to do in SC2. For one thing, there are way more options to harass and attack almost everywhere at once. You can jetpack, blink, walk over, burrow-move through chokes with some units and just teleport with things like warpgates and nydus canals. It's a totally different type of gameplay with things like lurkers and spider mines pretty much not in tune with it. The game is more about skirmishes everywhere instead of two big balls of units slowly pushing towards each other.
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
but I think it will and it doesn't look like there is a way to change that with the current units.
