EPTIf you want to say as a whole, that units die too fast and/or do too much damage, i would tend to agree, but that is easily patchable. The look and feel of this game is great. Just wait until professional map makers get a hold of the map editor and you will see a true balance for the game. As we know from watching Proleague, etc, that maps re-balance the power of starcraft, even from season to season. Having one unit area more or less can alter the outcome of a lot of battles. Have faith, i believe most of us do.
How to make SC2 feelMore like BW and less like WC3 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
cerebralz
United States443 Posts
If you want to say as a whole, that units die too fast and/or do too much damage, i would tend to agree, but that is easily patchable. The look and feel of this game is great. Just wait until professional map makers get a hold of the map editor and you will see a true balance for the game. As we know from watching Proleague, etc, that maps re-balance the power of starcraft, even from season to season. Having one unit area more or less can alter the outcome of a lot of battles. Have faith, i believe most of us do. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
Niten
United States598 Posts
On March 01 2010 04:07 Drazzzt wrote: To be honest. You all are giving me hope^^ Good! Capitalize on that  I think Day9 said it in a daily, but it's very true. Blizz has a track record of not fucking up your games. The recent Blizzcast further cements my trust in Blizz with Browder coming out to say that the team will do whatever is necessary to make it as good as can be. | ||
|
Squallcloud
France466 Posts
On March 01 2010 05:58 Truenappa wrote: Good! Capitalize on that I think Day9 said it in a daily, but it's very true. Blizz has a track record of not fucking up your games. The recent Blizzcast further cements my trust in Blizz with Browder coming out to say that the team will do whatever is necessary to make it as good as can be. Agree!! Seriously even the lost vikings is a good game!! :p | ||
|
Moutas
Greece158 Posts
I think the reason behind players not investing too much in static defense is because all 3 races can produce large amount of armies quite fast. Blizzard wanted to make SC2 matches end much faster than SC, so having hatches/raxes/gates making massive amounts of units in very short time makes it somewhat unnecessary to make any static defence. I've seen numerous replays where players can reach somewhere near 100 population within 7-8 minutes and off one base. Not only are troops produced faster, but imo they also move faster, and on some maps the distance between mains is really small, for example Steppes of War, LT (3v6 & 9v12), Metalopolis (left bases and right bases). So anyone that sees their opponent leaving their base might not have enough time to set-up their defense. Why bother anyways, a couple of cannons that are slow to build and have no mobility probably won't make any major difference in the outcome of the battle. Minerals are also mined way faster than before, I've seen Protoss players support something like 5 gates easily from one base. The only reasons why I think anyone should invest in static defence is if they choose to FE or need detection. BTW I see that SC2 upgrades are so much cheaper than before (ovi speed, warp gates 50/50 wtf?) so that means many players can afford to choose more technologies to research (toss also has chrono boost which is like imba for upgrades). In SC if you went for any reaver/dt drop or something then you lacked detection and goon range which meant you need to do serious damage with those few units your strategy is based on so you don't lose like a newb. If you succeeded in that then you could expo and then tech range and make a few observers. | ||
|
Krolinkos
Australia74 Posts
On March 01 2010 05:58 Truenappa wrote: Blizz has a track record of not fucking up your games. This. I really think doomsaying judgement is far too premature. I'm confident that Blizz will get it right, especially by the time that the dust from the second expansion pack settles. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2010 05:13 OverShield wrote: Actually no, that's not at all how it is. Because there are so many micro opportunities in the game that is very rarely the case. Players will usually clash several times before there is a decisive battle. The fact that there is less macro/bases/defensive positioning obviously means that a decisive battle will be just that: decisive. In SC it took a lot more to break through a line of tanks, yes, but that doesn't mean that WC3 is some mindless clash that is an instant win or lose. In fact, the inclusion of town portal (being able to teleport back to base) allows you to salvage your army and live to fight another day. I'm by no means a great player but even in most of my matches I'll have to pick away at my opponent before I overtake them, unless I'm doing an all in tower push or something. Even with towerpushes though I've witnessed many pros play an extended 10-15 with several towers inside their base. And even if you lose much of your army, excellent hero usage can give you the opportunity to still win the game. Everything OverShield says here is basically 100% correct and I agree ;P Maybe people making these comments base them on the original WC3 which was a lot more "turtle and creep". | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
There are a lot of complaints about the game not being strategic enough. While I don't/can't disagree with lots of top players that feel this way, I am perfectly happy with waiting to see what happens. I really think there is a lot of opportunity for optimization of builds and micro that even the best players miss. There are things that exist in this game that are 'foreign' or just new, and I believe those haven't been fully explored either. I think people haven't really sat down and hardcore analyzed replays. So I'm generally optimistic about how Starcraft II will turn out. However, one thing that really bothers me, is the high ground issue. I agree that having high ground is very powerful in the early game when most people don't have something to give them vision. But late game, breaking up a ramp is just as easy as breaking down a ramp would be in Starcraft. This seems like a strategic mistake to me. It makes having an army stronger than it should be (players should be favoring expanding and the like if their opponent is turtling). The high damage that units put out makes this issue a little bit worse, but I don't think that's the real problem. /edit - spelling mistake | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On March 01 2010 06:39 FrozenArbiter wrote: Everything OverShield says here is basically 100% correct and I agree ;P Maybe people making these comments base them on the original WC3 which was a lot more "turtle and creep". But what he said isn't really in disagreement with what I said. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 01 2010 06:55 LunarC wrote: The speed is the issue. Is Starcraft 2 too fast-paced for its own good? Do these high speed games make strategically tense gameplay? More tech, more abilities, more counters, faster units, faster speed doesn't necessarily mean more strategic depth, more micro intensive battles, more strategic army movement. I think Starcraft 2 might be placing the speed of battle into the wrong aspect of the game, and I honestly think the current macro mechanics might be somewhat messing with the speed at which the game is played... ..though I could just spouting nonsense. If there was a faster speed in BW, would the game be less strategic? If so, couldn't we just get everyone to play on Slow to make the game strategic as possible? These are kind of tough questions that don't have single, simple answers. I think the speed is an issue right now for BW players, but I am optimistic and think that players will adapt to the new flow of gameplay. A brilliant strategy will still be brilliant even if the games are slightly shorter. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On March 01 2010 07:18 DefMatrixUltra wrote: If there was a faster speed in BW, would the game be less strategic? If so, couldn't we just get everyone to play on Slow to make the game strategic as possible? These are kind of tough questions that don't have single, simple answers. I think the speed is an issue right now for BW players, but I am optimistic and think that players will adapt to the new flow of gameplay. A brilliant strategy will still be brilliant even if the games are slightly shorter. The problem is possibly more the fact theres less units to slow the pace of the game down, not the fact its literally faster. Tanks/lurkers/mines etc. | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On March 01 2010 03:36 Drazzzt wrote: I was thinking quite a lot about what I liked about SC:BW and what I didn't like about WC3. I came to the conclusion that Smorrie was kinda right. WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided (apart from the immense power of the heros and the fateful increasing "army" cost at higher supplies). That's not true at all. There is very often harassment, small skirmishes, numerous TPs and small, early-game battles over creeps. Warcraft III is dynamic and it usually doesn't even get to the point where there are two large, powerful forces from both players. The massive advantage a player attains from superior hero/heroes often proves to be decisive. With that in mind Warcraft III may have even more of a "slippery slope" effect than Starcraft. I know that it's natural for people here to heavily favor SC over WC3 since this is a SC forum. But it's frustrating how often totally inaccurate and demeaning things are said regarding Warcraft III. I have a feeling most people here are just total newbs in WC3 and have no sense of the game at all. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but then you shouldn't comment on it. | ||
|
OverShield
Canada41 Posts
On March 01 2010 07:44 Lefnui wrote: That's not true at all. There is very often harassment, small skirmishes, numerous TPs and small, early-game battles over creeps. Warcraft III is dynamic and it usually doesn't even get to the point where there are two large, powerful forces from both players. The massive advantage a player attains from superior hero/heroes often proves to be decisive. With that in mind Warcraft III may have even more of a "slippery slope" effect than Starcraft. I know that it's natural for people here to heavily favor SC over WC3 since this is a SC forum. But it's frustrating how often totally inaccurate and demeaning things are said regarding Warcraft III. I have a feeling most people here are just total newbs in WC3 and have no sense of the game at all. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but then you shouldn't comment on it. Cosign everything. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On March 01 2010 07:44 Lefnui wrote: That's not true at all. There is very often harassment, small skirmishes, numerous TPs and small, early-game battles over creeps. Warcraft III is dynamic and it usually doesn't even get to the point where there are two large, powerful forces from both players. The massive advantage a player attains from superior hero/heroes often proves to be decisive. With that in mind Warcraft III may have even more of a "slippery slope" effect than Starcraft. I know that it's natural for people here to heavily favor SC over WC3 since this is a SC forum. But it's frustrating how often totally inaccurate and demeaning things are said regarding Warcraft III. I have a feeling most people here are just total newbs in WC3 and have no sense of the game at all. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but then you shouldn't comment on it. I give five cents to the guy who understand why this does not counter the post it tries to counter barely at all. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 01 2010 07:38 infinity2k9 wrote: The problem is possibly more the fact theres less units to slow the pace of the game down, not the fact its literally faster. Tanks/lurkers/mines etc. The high ground mechanic plays into this as well. But I think play will evolve and people will find ways to 'slow' the pace of a game down to more of a macro-war style. Units like the Immortal are a strong deterrent to attacking a position without having the perfect composition. But you're right that missing lurkers and 'cheap' tanks and so on adds to this effect. The biggest thing adding to this effect is the faster economy and production. Every race has a way to pump out a massive number of units in a short time period. This is a departure from BW that is fundamentally new, and it's something that has to be figured out. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On March 01 2010 06:55 LunarC wrote: The speed is the issue. Is Starcraft 2 too fast-paced for its own good? Do these high speed games make strategically tense gameplay? More tech, more abilities, more counters, faster units, faster speed doesn't necessarily mean more strategic depth, more micro intensive battles, more strategic army movement. I think Starcraft 2 might be placing the speed of battle into the wrong aspect of the game, and I honestly think the current macro mechanics might be somewhat messing with the speed at which the game is played... ..though I could just spouting nonsense. I think that a lot of what we perceive as a speed increase also has to do with our ignorance of the game. In Starcraft 1, we all had such a firm foundational knowledge of the game that a lot of things seemed natural and it flowed very smoothly. Even after playing around 100 games, I still feel as though there are a lot of times that I fall behind simply because it doesn't come as naturally as SC1 yet. So even though we know how to play games at a fast speed and whatnot, we lack the understanding to do so easily. | ||
|
OverShield
Canada41 Posts
On March 01 2010 08:16 Squeegy wrote: I give five cents to the guy who understand why this does not counter the post it tries to counter barely at all. Hey buddy. You wanna let us in on your little secret? How are none of these posts countering what you and others are saying about WC3? "WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided" No, "There is very often harassment, small skirmishes, numerous TPs and small, early-game battles over creeps. Warcraft III is dynamic and it usually doesn't even get to the point where there are two large, powerful forces from both players." Comprende? Not really that difficult. | ||
|
Hammy
France828 Posts
On March 01 2010 03:47 StarsPride wrote: im sure they said the same about SC when switching from wc2. I can imagine the discussions: -OMG wtf man, 12 units can be selected? This is bs, blizzard is making ez mode games now... -Dude chill, it's only beta, it'll never stick. To OP: I disagree with you regarding static defenses. Actually I find that towers in general are pretty good as long as they have a minimum of backup (which is the way they should be). I find that the efficiency of static versus armies is pretty much just right, and I can tell you that I absolutely hate it when protoss place a tower+lots at a ramp because he gains a huge tactical advantage. Regarding building hit-points, I agree to some extent. In some scenarios it seems too easy to focus down buildings, specifically with void rays or reapers, but I don't think it's gamebreaking. I'm not saying balance is perfect, but I guess it can be a viable strategy to focus down one building, and that makes every move from a player all the more critical. However, I do think that some buildings should get a few more hitpoints. As for your point about strategy: for now, all strats sort of look alike but one unit is better in most circumstances than another in each matchup... A>B>C>D>A.... When's the last time I've made a roach in ZvT? A muta in ZvZ? How about an infestor in any matchup? I might be wrong for not making these units in these matchups, and I hope I am, but right now I would love to see some more versatility from certain units. For the time being, I barely feel like I'm responding to my enemy's strategies in ZvT and ZvZ. I just follow my build, and I either beat them or lose on a technicality like placement, not because of my army composition (so not because of my game plan). In ZvP, I had a bit more of a choice until 50% of the Protoss out there started void-ray rushing on ramp maps, so now I don't have the option of ling-baneling ownage, or roach into hydra plays because all of that is too slow to be able to break his front early on, and too slow to transition for anti-air. Basically, although I agree with some of your points, my conclusion is a bit different: I think that hard-counters should be toned down a bit, and that aiming for perfect execution with the softer counter of your choice (and there would always be more than one possibility) would be a better alternative. Although I've only got about 90 games played, and everything is changing so quickly, I'm playing against other relatively high-rank platinum players so I think these games provide at least a spec of material for balance. However, in the end, all anyone can do is wait and see : ) | ||
| ||
