|
I read Smorries post and also LunarCs post, but I still felt that there was enough room for discussion to create a new thread. If the mods don't agree, remove it  or move it to smorries thread. So, on to the topic.
I dont have a beta key myself (sigh), but at least I watched quite a lot of VODs/streams and replays.
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).
In extreme cases, the same is true for SC:BW, but not in all cases (the game over thing when big army was annhihilated I mean). So I asked myself, why is that? One good argument is also given by smorrie. Static defense is probably not strong enough PLUS (new) buildings die too fast. Think of the PvZ games, where the toss army is so much stronger than the zerg army, but Zerg has more expansions and secures them with lots of sunkens and lurkers and later nydus/dark swarm (especially in ZvT). Then, it becomes really hard to break this defense and even though u have the bigger army, it is still no autowin. Zerg can turn the game by staying alive long enough and harrassing e.g. new expansions etc.
I have the impression that this is much harder in SC2, as buildings die soooo fast and the static defense is not as strong (or maybe it is strong, but as the buildings die so fast, you can concentrate on the hatch/nexx/CC).
But that's not all to it. There is even one more major point, why SC2 seems inferior to SC1 strategy-wise etc. It's the weakened influence of the terrain, especially chokes and high ground vs low ground. I feel that this is a major drawback. I know they added some nice stuff like smoke and forest which reduces sight etc. But, in SC1 using high ground and chokes, you were able to hold your ground even with a way inferior army, even with the "wrong" unit composition (e.g. goons vs lings or whatever). This means that even if u had lost a big battle or if u chose the wrong counter etc., when using the terrain to your advantage you could still remain in the game and come back. Additionally, you could send smaller combat groups around and keep them alive etc.
In SC2, if you have the wrong unit combination or not enough units, choke and high ground (as long as the other can see with observer w/e) won't help you that much to hold, especially when the other has the right counter. Additionally, air is sooooo strong and strong units like collossus can simply step up the high ground and you are doomed.
Unfortunately, air units don't care about terrain. So, when air gets so strong it is used more often and terrain doesnt matter anymore. which is a pity, as it adds strategical and tactical depth.
I don't know if I could explain my thoughts well enough, but I hope you get my point. Think about a little more, there are much more subtleties about which I cant go into detail here. But I feel, that this is a major problem in SC2, and unfortunately, I don't know how to solve this easily  .
Thoughts?
|
In watching streams and replays, I'm already starting to see people move away from getting big army blobs and attacking. People are very much still figuring out the game, it looks like, and Blizz knows this. I'm not discounting your opinion, but I do think it's too early to say that this is definitively the case.
If this is really a problem, the metagame will show it and Blizz will patch it.
|
On March 01 2010 03:36 Drazzzt wrote:I read Smorries post and also LunarCs post, but I still felt that there was enough room for discussion to create a new thread. If the mods don't agree, remove it or move it to smorries thread. So, on to the topic. I dont have a beta key myself (sigh), but at least I watched quite a lot of VODs/streams and replays. 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). In extreme cases, the same is true for SC:BW, but not in all cases (the game over thing when big army was annhihilated I mean). So I asked myself, why is that? One good argument is also given by smorrie. Static defense is probably not strong enough PLUS (new) buildings die too fast. Think of the PvZ games, where the toss army is so much stronger than the zerg army, but Zerg has more expansions and secures them with lots of sunkens and lurkers and later nydus/dark swarm (especially in ZvT). Then, it becomes really hard to break this defense and even though u have the bigger army, it is still no autowin. Zerg can turn the game by staying alive long enough and harrassing e.g. new expansions etc. I have the impression that this is much harder in SC2, as buildings die soooo fast and the static defense is not as strong (or maybe it is strong, but as the buildings die so fast, you can concentrate on the hatch/nexx/CC). But that's not all to it. There is even one more major point, why SC2 seems inferior to SC1 strategy-wise etc. It's the weakened influence of the terrain, especially chokes and high ground vs low ground. I feel that this is a major drawback. I know they added some nice stuff like smoke and forest which reduces sight etc. But, in SC1 using high ground and chokes, you were able to hold your ground even with a way inferior army, even with the "wrong" unit composition (e.g. goons vs lings or whatever). This means that even if u had lost a big battle or if u chose the wrong counter etc., when using the terrain to your advantage you could still remain in the game and come back. Additionally, you could send smaller combat groups around and keep them alive etc. In SC2, if you have the wrong unit combination or not enough units, choke and high ground (as long as the other can see with observer w/e) won't help you that much to hold, especially when the other has the right counter. Additionally, air is sooooo strong and strong units like collossus can simply step up the high ground and you are doomed. Unfortunately, air units don't care about terrain. So, when air gets so strong it is used more often and terrain doesnt matter anymore. which is a pity, as it adds strategical and tactical depth. I don't know if I could explain my thoughts well enough, but I hope you get my point. Think about a little more, there are much more subtleties about which I cant go into detail here. But I feel, that this is a major problem in SC2, and unfortunately, I don't know how to solve this easily . Thoughts?
This is the same case in SCII also. The new high ground mechanic is really powerful, and I would argue more powerful than the SCI high ground mechanic. You have to have sight now to shoot up cliffs...
Overall, games last longer in SCII than in SCI at least to me...I've had quite a few 25-30min+ back and forths with Zerg and Protoss.
Also, as Terran the new turrets are much more powerful than their SCI counterparts, and it seems to me that photon cannons are likewise as powerful. There are a few units that can take out buildings quite fast (Reaper, Void Ray, Ultra, baneling, etc.), but they are niche. Otherwise buildings die about as fast as in SCI.
My observations from playing around 100 games.
Let me say this also....I have about 100 APM in SCII so thats like 130-150 equivalent of SCI and when I get to 3+ bases it is impossible to micro and macro, scout, harass, drop, etc. without big drop offs in either macro or micro....especially with bio + medi + viking. Even with 250-300+ APM when you get 4+ bases there is no way to play perfect. When you have 4-6 CC it is impossible to do mule/scan, micro, and macro even with the new MBS and auto-mine. Let me assure you, no one is going to be playing perfect games macro/micro wise. It's impossible.
|
im sure they said the same about SC when switching from wc2.
|
I've had one game so far where high ground really played to my advantage. I'm pretty sure Stalkers can't blink up to a place they don't have LOS of (up a cliff without an observer), which I had parked quite a few tanks on top of. They were forced to go around and blink past my wall - right into my Thors and such. Didn't end too well for him in that event, but a direct confrontation would have been really bad for me.
That said I find only in specific situations with very specific units ie colossus and tanks does terrain matter anymore. I try to use terrain as much as I can but battles are so bursty and damage is so high you really don't get that opportunity to set up and usually it doesn't make a big difference.
I also find terrain matters more in 2v2 and FFA than 1v1 because most of the 1v1 maps are extremely small and clustered imo.
|
The game is still changing every week for fucks sake. Stop worrying so much. And maybe also realize that its possible SC2 won't be a direct clone of SC1, and understand that maybe that isn't a bad thing.
|
Something I think will die out in SC2 already (already noticeable imo). Playing and view streams/replays/youtubes I'm noticing as well less larger armies and people trying to contain and expanding. Games been out a week... things aren't going to stay the same.....
|
Yeah, sc2 hasn't been out very long at all. Imagine the kinds of strategies people were using when SC1 was in beta, or even directly after release. I can almost guarantee you people were just massing up and going OMG SCOUTS SUCK HE BEAT ME WITH MASS GOLS!
While I think direct unit counters might be a bit high in this game, people just need time to figure out how to properly harass while not losing to a big unit blob themselves.
If the unit blob does stay then I for sure think something should be done, but really, most the maps available to play atm have a huge choke in the center with all routes leading to that one spot, so its no surprise people just move their entire army at once since its almost impossible to harass.
|
But that's not all to it. There is even one more major point, why SC2 seems inferior to SC1 strategy-wise etc. It's the weakened influence of the terrain, especially chokes and high ground vs low ground. I feel that this is a major drawback. I know they added some nice stuff like smoke and forest which reduces sight etc. But, in SC1 using high ground and chokes, you were able to hold your ground even with a way inferior army, even with the "wrong" unit composition (e.g. goons vs lings or whatever). This means that even if u had lost a big battle or if u chose the wrong counter etc., when using the terrain to your advantage you could still remain in the game and come back. Additionally, you could send smaller combat groups around and keep them alive etc.
In SC2, if you have the wrong unit combination or not enough units, choke and high ground (as long as the other can see with observer w/e) won't help you that much to hold, especially when the other has the right counter. Additionally, air is sooooo strong and strong units like collossus can simply step up the high ground and you are doomed.
Unfortunately, air units don't care about terrain. So, when air gets so strong it is used more often and terrain doesnt matter anymore. which is a pity, as it adds strategical and tactical depth.
Unfortunately, pretty much everything except that air units don't care about terrain is completely incorrect. Wait until you either play beta a lot, or get the game then throw these opinions out.
My assumption is that you're posting these based off of watching bad players mass roaches and wonder why they got killed by stalkers with blink or something. Everyone sucks at this game right now, some people just suck less.
|
To be honest. You all are giving me hope^^
|
On March 01 2010 03:57 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Yeah, sc2 hasn't been out very long at all. Imagine the kinds of strategies people were using when SC1 was in beta, or even directly after release. I can almost guarantee you people were just massing up and going OMG SCOUTS SUCK HE BEAT ME WITH MASS GOLS!
While I think direct unit counters might be a bit high in this game, people just need time to figure out how to properly harass while not losing to a big unit blob themselves.
If the unit blob does stay then I for sure think something should be done, but really, most the maps available to play atm have a huge choke in the center with all routes leading to that one spot, so its no surprise people just move their entire army at once since its almost impossible to harass.
Good points. But I think the main thing is that people are just being way too presumptuous. Look at how the game is played now compared to a week ago. Are we still seeing Zerg mass Roaches every single game? Is every single Protoss just 2 gating? Obviously not. As people are gaining more and more of an understanding of the game, people are branching out more. There is only so much you can do with so little of an understanding of the game. And though it may feel like its been longer, it has only been like 10 days or something like that.
To me, making judgments about the game at this point is not only extremely naive, but perhaps even arrogant. Its not bad to recognize that things aren't as you'd like at the moment, but to bring up ideas of how to change the game is just silly. Give the game at least a month...
|
On March 01 2010 04:04 Rickilicious wrote:
Everyone sucks at this game right now, some people just suck less.
Just thought of something funny, I would bet that anyone from this forum will be better at the game in one years time than everyone in the beta right now. Kinda puts things into perspective.
|
To me it seems like the attack speeds(and subsequentually dps) in general are too fast compared to move/build speeds, so battles end very fast, there's no time for reinforcements to arrive and delaying the enemy until you produce more units isn't really possible, e.t.c.
|
|
|
No offense but I would suggest you at least play a couple games before you decide that there is less strategy. IMHO, SC2 focuses a lot more on economy, macro, army composition, and overarching strategy than micro. Its for you to decide if thats for the better but you really can't tell until you try it out for yourself.
|
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).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No.
No.
The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth.
I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up.
|
On March 01 2010 04:20 lololol wrote:
To me it seems like the attack speeds(and subsequentually dps) in general are too fast compared to move/build speeds, so battles end very fast, there's no time for reinforcements to arrive and delaying the enemy until you produce more units isn't really possible, e.t.c.
Yes stuff dies fast but isn't that always the case in starcraft, it's in wc3 that it often takes forever to kill anything even low tier units.
Btw I love wc3 and agree with above post, wc3 is not about "let's make a big army and meet in middle to fight ok?" generally, maybe noob games but not at a higher level.
|
On March 01 2010 04:51 OverShield wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No. No. The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth. I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up.
Of course what he made was an over-simplification, but actually yes, that is pretty much how Warcraft 3 is.
|
On March 01 2010 04:49 DragonDefonce wrote:
No offense but I would suggest you at least play a couple games before you decide that there is less strategy. IMHO, SC2 focuses a lot more on economy, macro, army composition, and overarching strategy than micro. Its for you to decide if thats for the better but you really can't tell until you try it out for yourself.
Believe me. I would LOVE to. But unfortunately. I dont have a key . What can I do? >200€ is too much for my taste.
|
On March 01 2010 04:59 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 04:51 OverShield wrote: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).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No. No. The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth. I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up. Of course what he made was an over-simplification, but actually yes, that is pretty much how Warcraft 3 is.
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.
|
I tend to agree with the opinion that we all need to hold on and wait for the game to develop before we start making big assumptions. A big educational experience for me was watching the day9 dailies on how he's going about establishing just a early game. It took how many dozens of games to just try and get a halfway decent feel for the first 5 minutes of the game and where he would like to be at that first 5 minutes. When you try to account for everything that your opponent can do, and what timings they are, you just start to scratch the surface of what is possible, and what is optimal. As fans, we are somewhat spoiled by watching pro players who as of today, stand on the shoulders of many highly skilled players who have come before. The thought process that established the current metagame of SC1 took years to develop.
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.
|
Thanks for reading my post OP, but I don't think you understood my main points the way I intended. My fault for being such an unclear writer, haha. I didn't mean to say that static defenses and buildings were too underpowered. What I was saying was that units in general were mobile enough to meet the enemy on many fronts. It's also because there are certain air units, the most mobile in the game, are not capital ships yet do significant damage to buildings and ground units. It's the issue of over-mobility that's making bases harder to defend and it's over-mobility that allows players to simply A-move to control their armies. It's not that decisive battles will be fought this way but even skirmishes and such will be fought this way. Mutalisks in SC1 were unique in that they were fairly robust enough in a group to exert pressure directly onto the base, preventing the army from moving out. Now, we have Reapers, Stalkers, Banshees, and Vikings in addition to Mutalisks that are units that can easily move into the opponent's base and wreak havoc without a significant micro commitment. Micro shouldn't be limited to pulling units, focus firing, and spell casting. It should also encourage large army control. To make controlling a large army more micro intensive, units in the army should have to be controlled differently from each other and certain units should be less mobile. This will make good positioning and simply holding strategic locations drastically more important than roving around the map or A-moving into bases. There should be an advantage in mobility and an advantage in holding ground. That makes for dynamic battle. Hopefully the SC2 metagame changes a lot and I'm proven completely wrong. Otherwise I think what I'm saying is true to an extent.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2010 05:58 Truenappa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Agree!! Seriously even the lost vikings is a good game!! :p
|
First of all, why is everyone using the term "metagame" in random posts lately? Half of the times I don't even know what they want to say. That I can't understand...
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.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2010 05:13 OverShield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 04:59 Squeegy wrote:On March 01 2010 04:51 OverShield wrote: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).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No. No. The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth. I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up. Of course what he made was an over-simplification, but actually yes, that is pretty much how Warcraft 3 is. 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".
|
Starcraft II seems, if anything, faster paced than Starcraft. Economies blow up faster, tech is reached faster, units in general are fast compared to map size, lots of units do big damage in a small amount of time. It seems like macro is even more important and even more difficult (at least for Zerg and Protoss).
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
|
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.
|
On March 01 2010 06:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 05:13 OverShield wrote:On March 01 2010 04:59 Squeegy wrote:On March 01 2010 04:51 OverShield wrote: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).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No. No. The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth. I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up. Of course what he made was an over-simplification, but actually yes, that is pretty much how Warcraft 3 is. 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".
But what he said isn't really in disagreement with what I said.
|
The increased speed will INCREASE the skill cap. I'm glad SC2 is a bit faster as it raises the bar for pros. The only thing I worry about is the strategy in battles being too simple.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2010 07:18 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2010 07:44 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Cosign everything.
|
On March 01 2010 07:44 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I give five cents to the guy who understand why this does not counter the post it tries to counter barely at all.
|
On March 01 2010 07:38 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 07:18 DefMatrixUltra wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2010 08:16 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 07:44 Lefnui wrote: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. 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.
|
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 : )
|
So far the game lacks the same feeling that BW does , microwise that is although there may be some micro we're yet to discover or something
The game is still quite fun due to all the wacky strats you can come up with but I feel some units are restricting the "freeness" of the game , for example in TvP the immortal wich totally negates mech. I for one will only give up on this game when it's all figured out and only then I can compare it to BW
|
I'd like to suggest a new rule for the SC2 forums: People who don't have a beta key and haven't played any games of SC2 should not be allowed to make SC2 complain threads, especially ones centered around concepts like strategy or terrain mechanics that really require you to actually play the game to know what the fuck you're talking about..
|
On March 01 2010 09:13 ComradeDover wrote:
I'd like to suggest a new rule for the SC2 forums: People who don't have a beta key and haven't played any games of SC2 should not be allowed to make SC2 complain threads, especially ones centered around concepts like strategy or terrain mechanics that really require you to actually play the game to know what the fuck you're talking about..
*Stamp of approval*
|
Only problem I have with the game is when double clicking my larvae it STILL only makes 1 unit at a time. Which means if I have 3 hatcheries in close proximity and I want to make my 9 hydralisk I will have to push H 9 times!! I assure you there will always be something for you to do in game - hindering the creation of your army seems forced and unnecessary! I rather not have multi-select than being unable to make 3 drones out of my three larvae with the push of one button!
This is less noticeable with t/p but what's the difference between pushing Z one time or 7 for the gates you have. Makes you click for no reason, if I want to make a different unit combination I'll create two separate groups of gateways. Also hotkeys, haven't tried to change them put Pylon and PRobe are (E) and overlord is V and RALLY point is Y What's up with that? I want my old hotkeys back!
|
On March 01 2010 08:47 OverShield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 08:16 Squeegy wrote:On March 01 2010 07:44 Lefnui wrote: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. 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.
Thank you. I thought that I would have to explain that.
|
On March 01 2010 10:41 GrkMagas wrote:
Only problem I have with the game is when double clicking my larvae it STILL only makes 1 unit at a time. Which means if I have 3 hatcheries in close proximity and I want to make my 9 hydralisk I will have to push H 9 times!!
i might be mistaken, but isn't this a side-effect of smart-cast?
i seem to remember that in bw you could select multiple larvae and press one unit-build button to build them all.
|
|
|
Have to agree that Sc2 doesn't really live up to SC:Bw2 at the moment. But it's still in beta and it took years for BW to become what it's today. So I'd have to say it's only a matter of time till it's as polished as BW.
|
You're completely off on your description of WC3.
|
On March 01 2010 17:10 jacen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 10:41 GrkMagas wrote:
Only problem I have with the game is when double clicking my larvae it STILL only makes 1 unit at a time. Which means if I have 3 hatcheries in close proximity and I want to make my 9 hydralisk I will have to push H 9 times!! i might be mistaken, but isn't this a side-effect of smart-cast? i seem to remember that in bw you could select multiple larvae and press one unit-build button to build them all.
I find it actually makes it simpler to build units, as it opens the option of binding all hatcheries to one hotkey (I have been using one of my hotkeys as all hatcheries with saturated or close to saturated mines as an "army production hotkey") and can say "I want 7 roaches and 2 hydras" and make exactly that with just SRRRRRRRHH. You don't have to go through all hatcheries when army producing, or be stuck making blobs of the same unit.
|
its mathematicly proven that the metagame is a good skill toi have!
|
" 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)."
Have you even played WC3? Stopped reading there, you've clearly never played WC3 or SC2 and yet are making sweeping claims regarding both. Good day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
