EPTEverything kills everything else too fast! - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
micropede
United States47 Posts
| ||
|
Ricjames
Czech Republic1047 Posts
| ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On April 06 2010 15:57 Waxangel wrote: it's more like, things that counter things kill them too fast if not you never kill them in a million years  Yeah I would agree that its more like this. Certain units can kill off their counterparts too rapidly for my taste while otherwise they're unstoppable. As a spectator I would prefer soft counters instead of hard ones. | ||
|
MeSaber
Sweden1235 Posts
On April 07 2010 01:36 Qikz wrote: Not only that, but battles seem to last the same, especially in TvP, in Brood War battles were over generally in about 10 seconds and it's not really any different here. Yes but thats because they have made counterparts on both sides. But when it comes to buildings (which remains kinda unchanged since BW) youll see big difference in speed. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
IDK what to do about it, the game is still fun- but the OP makes a great point, if you don't scout your mini map like a pro, you can lose buildings long before you can come back to defend... compared to, say, the time it would take for a Drop Ship of MnM to snipe a Hatchery in SC1 vs the time it would take a Medivac full of Maruaders... must be half time. | ||
|
ShadowReaver
Canada563 Posts
But I'd rather have it this way, then the much slower WC3 style, although it could be slowed down a bit from how it is now. Doesn't seem like there's a easy solution to this though. | ||
|
hoovehand
United Kingdom542 Posts
imo all 3 units need serious balancing if blizz want the game to succeed as an esport. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
I mostly blame the maps for this. Look at steppes of war, the distance from nat to nat barely is longer than the distance from your main to your nat. Some maps are ok on cross positions, but not on close positions, and desert oasis is just an awful map despite the good nat to nat distance. It's a good thing that all the current maps are labeled "small", so we can hope to have larger maps in the future. But who knows how the balance will turn out on completely untested map sizes. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On April 06 2010 16:00 k!llua wrote: i think you still need to give the game time. you're basically comparing a finished, perfectly refined product in BW to the SC2 beta. it might be fairer comparison to compare SC in beta to the SC2 beta. i think you'll find that sc2 would stack up quite well. Why do people keep talking this shit? Yes, the game is at beta. That means things will change. Now, what is the point of the beta test if not to show what things need to be changed... | ||
|
WaveMotion
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
in broodwar it was all about flanking positional fights and huge fights over mapcontol. ofc a battle take way longer when you are trying to break a terran push from 3 angles with a constant stream of units. in sc2 you have 2 massive balls engaging eachother with all units beeing in range to fire most of the time. so evrything dies much faster cause evrything can hit and is beeing hit all the time. also since alot of the pushing and "i throw wave after wave at you till you crumble!" just doesnt exist anymore it happens very often that one fight decides the whole game (just watch idra play. macro up 15 minutes then attack with 100 roaches and its over 99% of the time). cause really, BW was SICK fast. half a second of fucking up could mean you lose loads of units. but since most battles were of a bigger scale and across a way bigger area it still took more time overall . aaand the real macro games dont happen anymore. when you watched a lategame pvt or zvp you usally saw constant action for 10 minutes straight with hundreds of supply dying all the time for both sides. in sc2 a macro battle very often is just mass up and wait till 1 engages. 1 big fight (which is over super fast cause of the clumping) and the great macro battle is over. /edit and i mostly disagree that its related to counters killing units too fast (some exceptions aside) just look how storm,lurks,sairs,tanks,archons etc etc could rape millions of units in splitsecs. oh you have 50 marines running into lurks? you just lost 50 food in 1 second. oh you ran 40 hydra past 8 tanks on a cliff? you just lost 40m food in 2 secs. oh your 15 mutas flew over his mm force? 30 supply gone in 2 secs. this actally all happened in a WAY shorter time then anycounter works in sc2. but ofc all that was very avoidable and came often down to micro which isnt possible in sc2. no matter how good you are, collosi WILL massrape your marines/hydras in secs. so its not directly that units kill other units too fast but that the counters are unavoidable and that all units clump like crazy and that flanking and positional play is almost nonexistant. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On April 07 2010 01:43 Ricjames wrote: How are people that are not in the beta supposed to compete with people that are in the beta and played like 700 games already..this sucks How is flash better than boxer? | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
Compared to BW: Units blocked each other because they had kinda large hitboxes, it seemed to be quite an effort to bring as much units as possible into a position where they actually can attack, instead of having loads of units just watching the battle from some distant position because it is blocked. Also made longe-ranged units kinda cool. Compared to WC3: Other Damage/HP-Balance and smaller armies led to longer fights with micro required. Since you have nearly a 100% damage output of your units during a fight, it's over so quickly and low-hp units such as marines become extremely weak to AoE such as storms. So I think there are two ways of making battles slower: Rebalancing HP and Attackspeed/Damage Making units larger compared to the terrain so you can't always attack with all of your army. So yeah overall i can only agree with BeMannerDuPenner 2 posts above  | ||
|
SouL)R(MizaR
Australia111 Posts
That way every unit still behaves exactly the way its meant to, just they attack slightly slower, allowing you to micro slightly easier. A small decrease by 5% is tiny and hardly noticeable but it would allow for much greater control of your units. ohh and of course defensive structures would also need to have a 5% decrease in attack speed to match the units new speed | ||
|
Crisium
United States1618 Posts
They can just decrease the game speed. I think faster is 33% faster than fast? Simply make it 25%. So it affects your micro abilities? So what? It's beta. Now is the time to do it. If they wait until retail we will have to live with the high speed. Or work on the trinity problem. | ||
|
SolveN
Canada43 Posts
My feelings: + Show Spoiler + -Brood War evolved into the single greatest RTS of all time. - SC2 lacks the tension/drama that Brood War can evoke. - A single moment/decision/engagement/mistake can utterly cripple a player more frequently in SC2. - Engagements in SC2 are more prone to a '1A' style, are decided faster and lack the micro-intensivity of Brood War. - Like Idra has stated, in Brood War someone could "hard counter" your build and through superior mechanics/tactics, it was possible to win. I feel it's more of a guessing game, but not impossible, in SC2. There are very few true impossibilities in an RTS. - SC2 maps feel much smaller than Brood War maps. Please note these are my opinions, not facts. By no means am I complaining about SC2, rather I only want what is best for it. SC2 should not be the exact same as Brood War, but rather should build upon the exceptional qualities that Brood War embodies. The above statements can be debated, and it is important to include that SC2 is still very young and will continue to develop. These opinions could quickly change as the game evolves, or perhaps are unwarranted and a product of my own limited perception. Perhaps Flash will make the switch to SC2 and shatter the meta-game. My suggestion: + Show Spoiler + Here is my suggestion, albeit quite an audacious one: Slow gameplay down a very small percent. I mean a very small percent, just so much that at the top level of gameplay, pros could feel a difference. I'm not talking 'normal' speed, I'm talking a hair slower than the standard 'faster' speed. Obviously I'm making this suggestion without the ability to actually see the results on a mass pro level, so this is completely hypothetical. What I think it could accomplish: + Show Spoiler + - Situations would evolve more slowly, heightening the build-up and drama leading up to game-changing events. - There would be a bigger window to recognize a single mistake or unfortunate happening, such as a mis-rally. Players would have the opportunity to recognize a bad engagement sooner and pull back with less losses. - There would be an increased emphasis on unit positioning and movement. (This I feel is one of the greatest differences between Brood War and SC2 right now and I want more of it in SC2). Small engagements would become more frequent therefore becoming maxed would not be such a given (as in Brood War). - There would be more opportunity to micro during battles, and micro would play a bigger role in deciding the outcome of the battle. Lowering the APM needed to micro your units would make micro-ing simpler yes, but that would not result in lowering the skill involved, as there would be more of it on both sides of the engagement and doing it better than your opponent would be important. - Giant battles would occur over a longer period of time, rather than all at once. - There would be an increased emphasis on timing. - Subtleties such as building placement and spotters would increase in significance. - Maps would stay the same size, but the time it takes to traverse them would increase, as well as the ability to adjust your troops within the given spaces. Possible drawbacks: + Show Spoiler + Certainly this could have a initially negative effect on certain SC2 mechanics. Being able to blink individual stalkers perfectly, for example, could possibly become too strong an ability. Being able to spread marines perfectly against banelings could be an issue. Such issues could be addressed on an as-needed basis and after these wrinkles are ironed out (perhaps make banelings a little cheaper, etc), I would hope to be left with an improved game. Closing statement: + Show Spoiler + I believe it was Day9 who said decreasing difficulty (in this case speed) of a game only makes the game simpler if there isn't anything else you could be doing. In Starcraft 2, there is always something else you could be doing; whether it is sending out small squads of units to keep a late-game attack lane open or carefully dancing colossi just out of viking range while you spread your zealots out to minimize tank damage. I feel slightly slowing the pace could give players a greater opportunity to think, strategize and react, and could actually increase the depth of the game, and thereby improve it for players and spectators alike. Thanks for reading | ||
|
uzas
Croatia52 Posts
| ||
|
DiDigital
75 Posts
| ||
|
SolveN
Canada43 Posts
Decreasing the speed of the game decreases the amount of skill required to play well. I think many here would argue that the 'skill ceiling' of SC2 is already lower than BW and perhaps too low in general. See what happened there? I make a statement: slowing the game down a fraction may increase the skill level required to play it. I supply several paragraphs explaining why I think so. Then you make the statement: Slowing the game down would make it easier. No explanation or rebuttal to my post. I don't want to make SC2 easier, in fact I believe slowing the game down a touch may in fact make it harder. | ||
|
hAxel
United Kingdom57 Posts
Lots of testing would be required though but Blizz could do all that in house etc. I'm of the opinion that at some stage Blizz decided on a game speed but changed things up as it wasn't working the way it was expected. How else can you explain they release the game and everyone plays on faster? If they wanted it at that speed to start with then it would be called 'normal' and we wouldn't have a clock in game that actually runs to fast, the clock would have been synced. I don't know if you get what I'm trying to say, but I do  BTW, Necro threader  | ||
| ||
