Hi I'm replying to the thread up to post 635, so I apologise in advance for missing anything that crops up after that.
The opinion that really stood out for me can be summed up as "BW is perfect, so SC2 should build on that". Someone went so far as to specifically advocate a graphical revamp of BW with a couple of new units.
With respect to all concerned, this cannot be. Perfection is a quality of the whole; it is as much about what is not there as what is, and what is not there in BW right now are the 'couple of new units' we're talking about adding.
But there is a broader point to be appreciated here: if something has already achieved a local maximum of greatness (as many here have claimed of BW, and I'm in no position to disagree), then the one place you immediately know you shouldn't start when trying to make something new and great is anywhere near that local maximum. If you do, you will tend to converge upon the same product all over again, creating unnecessary tension between the desire to 'make the game better' and the need to make it different. For what an unsubstantiated claim is worth, I have extensive first hand developer experience of that 'black hole' effect
Slightly less extreme are those - like the OP - who aren't specifically asking for a BW clone but who see every solution to perceived problems with SC2 in terms of BW, ie: replicating that game's specific unintentional 'sploitz. Here again I respectfully disagree: this too will drive convergence upon old mechanics (The OP himself hoped for as much with the viking losing its transformer ability). The broader lesson to be learned from the OP's observations is that there should be a range of ways to control units, with more difficult manoeuvres reducing or overturning raw numerical superiority and/or unit strengths/weaknesses. Crucially, unlike bunging new units into a graphically updated BW, that subtlety of control can be layered on top of an already balanced game. Which, in a feat that should not be underestimated, SC2 is shaping up to be.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not being complacent. I don't think the emergence of BW-level micro skill differential is a foregone conclusion in SC2. But the time to work on those nuances is the same as the time the fortuitous exploits in BW were discovered: after the game is already ticking along nicely without them.
Finally, regarding the alleged tension between making SC2 financially viable and viable as an esport: IIRC it's not Blizzard's fault they went into SC2 with no vested financial interest in the SC franchise as an esport.
On April 27 2010 23:49 iG.ClouD wrote: In my opinion the real problem about Starcraft2 is the complete lack of knowledge of the game by the developers. Moving shot is an huge issue but is not the only one. For example, I could make a thread as big about how bad this retarded unit clumping affects the game, or how some of the units in the game belong to the wrong tier (sentries and banelings), or how poorly balanced the game is due to the only fact zerg queen has larva injection. They are just a bunch of very good but common devs who are making an amazing single player game without having given the slightiest research on how a good multi player rts game should be. That fits perfectly with what Dustin said. They cared about everything else other than the graphics and units coolness after they were done with it. It's a game designed completely around its graphics and units design, which is not the most important and fun thing in an RTS. A dish that has a nice look and a poor taste in comparison. And yet they took a countless amount of years to reach this.
Retarded unit clumping? How about you MICRO your units so they don't do it?
On April 28 2010 01:31 Olorin.SVK wrote: I guess we will have to wait for SC2 PROMOD if we want to play the game "as it was meant to be played". :-) Nice article tho, hope someone with the power to change things is reading this.
If you were being serious with the PROMOD comment, it was an April Fool's joke.
On April 28 2010 01:05 TeWy wrote: This article pretty much confirms that any discourse, no matter how much logical fallacies and incorrect informations it contains, will be acclaimed by the crowd as long as it targets the scapegoats and the things people don't like.
I couldn't stand his insulting tone in the article either, but I still think his core argument is spot on. SC2 is a sequel, therefore it should be a BETTER game, and there's nothing better about taking out things that dramatically increased the micro depth in the game.
I think Diablo 3 Lead Designer Jay Wilson said it best: "Different but worse isn't better. Better is better."
There is still micro in SC2, but it's without a doubt a lot less than in SC1, and problems with the engine are a big part of it. Moving shot should be in the game no question - I don't even know why people are arguing so vehemently against it. There is NO disadvantage to putting a true moving shot in the game - nada, zip, zero, zilch. Any imbalances caused by the UI improvements can easily be patch by tweaking numbers, so there's really no excuse. Blizzard said that they're willing to make dramatic changes even in beta, and I can't see any better time to do it than now in order to fix a nagging problem with SC2 that has been bugging fans since it was first announced.
Making the game better is what a sequel is all about. Even if the article's tone is rude and condescending, it still has a very good point.
1) some say that the moving shot micro creates the gap that can separate pros from nubs like me, since they probably playing the game with a 4000 dpi mouse when i am playing the game on a 10 dollar mouse with no mouse pad, and having terrible reflexes and hand eye coordination from birth to boot. And that this is the kind of skill they wish starcraft takes, mechanical precision.
2) some say that there are other forms of micro, to which the former group refuse to acknowledge.
But, if people really wanted to get technical about it, what exactly is a RTS game?
RTS - Real-time strategy. AKA strategies in real time.
A direct translation would have us believe that games in the RTS genre focus on strategies formed in real time war/combat situations where one must have awareness of the battlefield and form said strategies based on the terrain/army composition and what ever advantages you may have..
No where in the name of RTS do I see "real time fast-reflex-precision-clicking" game. And no, high APM is not a STRATEGY, it's a talent/skill. I saw some people post earlier saying that then the game will be boring and all about just building counters to your enemies and you'll never lose. I would disagree as following this logic no country should ever lose a war. You are thinking, but so's your enemy. Since you cannot have full map visibility, you'll never know what's really coming as you can only form the most likely scenario from assumptions and information you have. In fact, this is what i find most annoying about games like this. Lower level players follow build orders blindly because they don't understand the reasoning behind why it is better and they don't care, effectively removing the strategy from RTS.
Well, that's just my take on things anyways. I'm terribad at counterstrike because I have very bad hand eye coordination ever since birth and my reaction time is a bit slower than average, and I really don't want to see starcraft 2 turn into another one of those see who can click faster kind of games.
On April 28 2010 01:39 qtpie wrote: so from what i understand,
1) some say that the moving shot micro creates the gap that can separate pros from nubs like me, since they probably playing the game with a 4000 dpi mouse when i am playing the game on a 10 dollar mouse with no mouse pad, and having terrible reflexes and hand eye coordination from birth to boot. And that this is the kind of skill they wish starcraft takes, mechanical precision.
2) some say that there are other forms of micro, to which the former group refuse to acknowledge.
But, if people really wanted to get technical about it, what exactly is a RTS game?
RTS - Real-time strategy. AKA strategies in real time.
A direct translation would have us believe that games in the RTS genre focus on strategies formed in real time war/combat situations where one must have awareness of the battlefield and form said strategies based on the terrain/army composition and what ever advantages you may have..
No where in the name of RTS do I see "real time fast-reflex-precision-clicking" game. And no, high APM is not a STRATEGY, it's a talent/skill. I saw some people post earlier saying that then the game will be boring and all about just building counters to your enemies and you'll never lose. I would disagree as following this logic no country should ever lose a war. You are thinking, but so's your enemy. Since you cannot have full map visibility, you'll never know what's really coming as you can only form the most likely scenario from assumptions and information you have. In fact, this is what i find most annoying about games like this. Lower level players follow build orders blindly because they don't understand the reasoning behind why it is better and they don't care, effectively removing the strategy from RTS.
Well, that's just my take on things anyways. I'm terribad at counterstrike because I have very bad hand eye coordination ever since birth and my reaction time is a bit slower than average, and I really don't want to see starcraft 2 turn into another one of those see who can click faster kind of games.
I've heard it's possible to get to C+/B-ish with about 150 APM on ICCUP, you don't need a high APM, just good decision making. Starcraft is only known (among the uneducated) as a 'who can click faster' game because of the very high skill ceiling; if you're on the same strategic level as your opponent, THEN mechanics will definately come into play.
On April 28 2010 01:39 qtpie wrote: so from what i understand,
1) some say that the moving shot micro creates the gap that can separate pros from nubs like me, since they probably playing the game with a 4000 dpi mouse when i am playing the game on a 10 dollar mouse with no mouse pad, and having terrible reflexes and hand eye coordination from birth to boot. And that this is the kind of skill they wish starcraft takes, mechanical precision.
2) some say that there are other forms of micro, to which the former group refuse to acknowledge.
But, if people really wanted to get technical about it, what exactly is a RTS game?
RTS - Real-time strategy. AKA strategies in real time.
A direct translation would have us believe that games in the RTS genre focus on strategies formed in real time war/combat situations where one must have awareness of the battlefield and form said strategies based on the terrain/army composition and what ever advantages you may have..
No where in the name of RTS do I see "real time fast-reflex-precision-clicking" game. And no, high APM is not a STRATEGY, it's a talent/skill. I saw some people post earlier saying that then the game will be boring and all about just building counters to your enemies and you'll never lose. I would disagree as following this logic no country should ever lose a war. You are thinking, but so's your enemy. Since you cannot have full map visibility, you'll never know what's really coming as you can only form the most likely scenario from assumptions and information you have. In fact, this is what i find most annoying about games like this. Lower level players follow build orders blindly because they don't understand the reasoning behind why it is better and they don't care, effectively removing the strategy from RTS.
Well, that's just my take on things anyways. I'm terribad at counterstrike because I have very bad hand eye coordination ever since birth and my reaction time is a bit slower than average, and I really don't want to see starcraft 2 turn into another one of those see who can click faster kind of games.
If you want a strategy game that doesnt require "skill" = apm,multitasking etc go play CHESS you shouldnt be able to sit in the middle of the game and go "hmmmm... *scratching head*, what should i do now?"
On April 28 2010 01:05 TeWy wrote: This article pretty much confirms that any discourse, no matter how much logical fallacies and incorrect informations it contains, will be acclaimed by the crowd as long as it targets the scapegoats and the things people don't like.
You could have claimed that moving shot makes the game more spectacular and emphasize a certain kind of hardcore micro that you like, that's a totally legitimate opinion, and I guess a lot of BW players and spectators feel that way. But you didn't say that. You claimed such things as "you can't micro your units against a superior force", or "some air units have an abusive range" just before complaining about the fact that there's no way to fire with them without taking at least a volley worth of damage. You also didn't say "I believe this.. or that", you stated "Blizzard failed", "Blizzard need to do this, and that, and this units makes no sense...".
The reason why people didn't criticize your insane display of arrogance and the considerable amount of non-senses that you wrote is that you have a personal opinion that a lot of people here share, and that you have mascaraded as a deep and profound analysis of both SC:BW and SC2 skill-ceilings. You want Blizzard to bring back some elements of Brood War that you have already mastered and that makes it a really cool and fun game to watch for you, that's OK, but don't use pretext such as "there will be no micro in SC2 if the fire animation keeps being that long" because this is the kind of things people heard during the War3:BETA when some old SC PGMers claimed that there would be no micro-tricks considering how many HP the units have.
I couldn't have said it better. I totally agree with what you just wrote.
I find it a bit disturbing that some people percieve the OP as a well written post. Oo Essentially all the OP is saying that micro is not as it was in BW and therefore it is not existing. The comparison screenshots are useless at best (Corsair -Scourge/ Muta is simply something sompletly different than Muta - Pheonix and cant be compared directly as done by the OP). The way the OP post is written is essentially nothing but aggressive statements in direction Browder/Blizzard and whining that SC:2 isnt BW.
It also seems that the majority didnt even properly read the OP. Next to most supporters writing stuff like:I dont play the Beta, but I totally agree with the OP, there is no Micro, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Of course not everything is superb, but the OP statements are nothing but whining and I wonder how that thread isnt deleted yet, as the OP isnt even according to the SC2 forum rules oO
So many zone and terrain considerations created by mines, cliffs, ramps, and each player's positioning. Such a prolonged engagement that could swing either way at any point based on control. So many strategic considerations that evolve during the battle based on progressing technologies, shifting battle lines, and changes in battle outcome possibilities. All this translates into one minute of pure action and excitement. Oh it has nothing to do with moving shot but still everything to do with crisp control and unit handling.
But yeah, despite how true LaLuSh's core argument was, Blizzard has not yet to date demonstrated that community suggestions regarding high-level engine or design changes will be acted upon. Even if the OP were worlds more diplomatic, it would not impact the game.
This is the perfect rebuttle to the OPs argument that moving shot is the single element SC2 critically lacks. It does, however, bring out the point that SC2 still lacks something SC1 had.
What is most important to me is that high-threat attacks like spider mines, sieged tanks, and so on have been removed from "standard" combat in SC2. Now it just feels like throwing large numbers of similar units at one another.
Furthermore, DPS and health levels are set just badly enough that even retreating a unit to allow it to draw aggro seems to lower overall output enough that it becomes a bad strategy.
One of the key ideas of old micro was that a pro player with good micro could almost always defeat an army of nearly double supply assuming their opponent was scrubby or just A-moving. In addition to defensive advantages, this made "dangerous" economic play all the more exciting as it meant that early risk would reward in a near-certain victory for the more skilled player in the long term ("If he can stop that tank push with just those few dragoons, imagine what he can do when he has 4 bases to work with against T's two!")
In conclusion, Micro does in fact still need some work, but moving shot is most certainly not the only problem. Trying to proclaim that it is the only element of the problem in fact detracts from other elements actual problem.
On April 28 2010 01:39 qtpie wrote: so from what i understand,
1) some say that the moving shot micro creates the gap that can separate pros from nubs like me, since they probably playing the game with a 4000 dpi mouse when i am playing the game on a 10 dollar mouse with no mouse pad, and having terrible reflexes and hand eye coordination from birth to boot. And that this is the kind of skill they wish starcraft takes, mechanical precision.
You also don't need to amazing equipment to play sc, Nal_ra is using a ball mouse...
On April 28 2010 00:41 teekesselchen wrote: Just found this video as a related link, it shows so nicely what made Broodwar spectacular and what totally misses in SC2. Such a sweet micro, look at the costs of two vultures and what they destroyed ~~ You won't be able to do anything like this with a Starcraft 2 unit. Try to harass with two hellions? Lol, they get ripped apart by roach/stalker/marauder autoattack before they could do something useful, as long as your opponent has something to defend.
(Surely you could say protoss failed but things like this never ever happen in SC2)
Does anyone here actually play starcraft 2 or are you just asserting stuff based on what you think the game is like? The hellion is NOT the "new" vulture so first of all will people stop making themselves look like morons by getting stuck on this comparison. Furthermore and to the point as a terran player I guess it must have been a dream all those times I've used thor drop to destroy vastly more resources worth of units. And guess what, while the hellion may not be able to like the vulture kite and kill just about any slower moving melee unit, the reaper can, upgraded reapers can kite and kill speedlings without taking a single hit. How is that any different than vulture micro? Also, vultures should not be brought up at all as any example of a higher learning curve, it is retardedly easy to learn to vulture micro. When I picked up broodwar seriously it took me five minutes to master it, it is not hard. The learning curve comes in when you see how many vultures you can control independent of one another at the same time, exactly the same thing goes for reapers.
On April 28 2010 01:39 qtpie wrote: so from what i understand,
1) some say that the moving shot micro creates the gap that can separate pros from nubs like me, since they probably playing the game with a 4000 dpi mouse when i am playing the game on a 10 dollar mouse with no mouse pad, and having terrible reflexes and hand eye coordination from birth to boot. And that this is the kind of skill they wish starcraft takes, mechanical precision.
2) some say that there are other forms of micro, to which the former group refuse to acknowledge.
But, if people really wanted to get technical about it, what exactly is a RTS game?
RTS - Real-time strategy. AKA strategies in real time.
A direct translation would have us believe that games in the RTS genre focus on strategies formed in real time war/combat situations where one must have awareness of the battlefield and form said strategies based on the terrain/army composition and what ever advantages you may have..
No where in the name of RTS do I see "real time fast-reflex-precision-clicking" game. And no, high APM is not a STRATEGY, it's a talent/skill. I saw some people post earlier saying that then the game will be boring and all about just building counters to your enemies and you'll never lose. I would disagree as following this logic no country should ever lose a war. You are thinking, but so's your enemy. Since you cannot have full map visibility, you'll never know what's really coming as you can only form the most likely scenario from assumptions and information you have. In fact, this is what i find most annoying about games like this. Lower level players follow build orders blindly because they don't understand the reasoning behind why it is better and they don't care, effectively removing the strategy from RTS.
Well, that's just my take on things anyways. I'm terribad at counterstrike because I have very bad hand eye coordination ever since birth and my reaction time is a bit slower than average, and I really don't want to see starcraft 2 turn into another one of those see who can click faster kind of games.
This is why STARCRAFT is the best RTS of all time compared to the rest of the RTS crap that has been created so far and why there is ESPORT scene in Korea for only one RTS game which is STARCRAFT.
The equimpent its not so imporant in SC like compared with CS. I can execute most of the pro micro with a crappy noname chinese mouse . And i have a really bad apm compared to pro players. I can micro good but my macro is gonna suffer because of that and its because of my limitations. This is why pro players will never lose to a amateurs most of the time. That cant be said for SC2. Even noob can win a "pro" if he gets a bo advantage and the oponent cant do shit to counter it.
I read through your entire post and came to the conclusion that it was mainly just qq about zerg and protoss "imbalances".
No micro? How bout viking defender advantage against mass bcs? How bout trying to save your hellions from dying whilest microing them while targeting the probes in the most linear path? How bout marauders kiting any unit with shorter range that could dominate them 1 on 1?
I think this game is just as difficult as sc1 is. We don't even have finely tuned build orders yet, or the ability to play on lan latency. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think giving phoenix the ability to shoot on the move will save you from 8 mutas and some scourge.
Also anyone bother to notice that most of the micro he's begging for is based entirely on the magic box concept? Muta micro/corsair anti muta micro is completely null and void if you can't stack them.
This is why pro players will never lose to a amateurs most of the time. That cant be said for SC2. Even noob can win a "pro" if he gets a bo advantage and the oponent cant do shit to counter it.
And thus, the noob is better than the pro. I don't see your point. If the "pro" has a shitty counter to the "noobs" BO than the noob is better, regardless of gimmicky micro tricks and UBER 1337 APM
On April 28 2010 00:31 Kralic wrote: I will bring up a CS 1.x arguement to go with this moving shot. In the game of CS they used to have a flaw in the game engine that would allow you to "Bunnyhop" if you could do it you could jump around the map very fast thus a lot of people got upset so they revamped the engine by slowing you down if you jumped.
The moving shot in SC:BW was a limitation by the game engine, it was a flaw that people could exploit to have an advantage over those who could not do it as well. SC2 is the revamp of that engine taking out that factor. Blizzard most likely did not like it in SC:BW but could not redo the engine nor waste the resources on that. SC2 was their answer to fixing the flaws in their old engine.
Micro is still around, you can still stack mutas into a single ball the size of one Mutalisk and own a lot of stuff. Attack move players are my favourite to play against because I can out micro them by moving my ranged units around and melee units around. Phoenix vs Mutalisk is still a viable micro battle, they move faster than the mutalisk and have a very fast firing rate so you can move stop fire move really quickly. Believe it or not the Thor actually does have micro, if you use his cannons on the enemy's big units Collosus, other Thor's, and Ultralisks it really does screw the opponent up because that unit cannot do anything while the Thor uses his cannons. Thor drops are the new Reaver drop it doesnt do as much random damage but it does a ton of controlled damage at the same time. Blink micro is huge if you know what to do, PvP if they have void rays and you have stalkers you can blink a stalker that is getting focused back and cut the beam off so they have to recharge it. Force fields are also very micro intensive, you can spam them but if you spam them in the wrong location you can screw your army up more than the oppositions. I don't get why people think kiting with Marauders is skillless, it is the same concept as a vulture except where the vulture had no slow effect it had the extra speed to do the same thing.
Blizzard is making their own unique game, if you don't play it they won't cry, they will sell this to a lot of people new to the RTS scene and the casuals. The singleplayer is what a lot of the % of the SC fans are all about and custom maps. Ladder will be there for the "hardcore" to grind out day to day and we have to wait and see where proleague is heading.
first, I would react to the capt. sentences in your post: (NO), SCBW had flaws and bugs which were ofc not meant by the developers, but it turned out the game to be the best rts of all time and SC2 is definately not made to fix these flaws. SC2 is made because SC1 has such a big fanbase and achieved so much in the world of gaming - having professional gamers paid thousands of dollars in Korea and Blizzard sees a good opportuninty to make a game that would change esports around the world and they would actually profit of it...yes it is business and it is about money. No freaking intention to "fix" SC1 flaws.
now my point: SC2 is very good and entertaining game despite it being in BETA stage, but the question is - is it really that deep and good game as SCBW was. I haven't heard anybody said that SC2 is better or at least as good as SC1. Sure it is in BETA and everybody should just wait how it turns out, but players have to give blizz feedback on what feels wrong and what good. In my opinion Blizzard should make it mechanically very close to bw (preserve the fast paced action requiring a lot of control) - only with different units, strategies, graphics and stuff to get the best of it. They now have so much better tech to make "the game". If there are that many people complaining about the game, then there is obviously something wrong. And i am sure people don't want another SC1 of it - tired of playing the same game over and over. We want new and possibly better game than SC1. Blizzard can make it anyway they want, but for god sakes make it good.
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T" this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
On April 28 2010 00:41 teekesselchen wrote: Just found this video as a related link, it shows so nicely what made Broodwar spectacular and what totally misses in SC2. Such a sweet micro, look at the costs of two vultures and what they destroyed ~~ You won't be able to do anything like this with a Starcraft 2 unit. Try to harass with two hellions? Lol, they get ripped apart by roach/stalker/marauder autoattack before they could do something useful, as long as your opponent has something to defend.
(Surely you could say protoss failed but things like this never ever happen in SC2)
Does anyone here actually play starcraft 2 or are you just asserting stuff based on what you think the game is like? The hellion is NOT the "new" vulture so first of all will people stop making themselves look like morons by getting stuck on this comparison. Furthermore and to the point as a terran player I guess it must have been a dream all those times I've used thor drop to destroy vastly more resources worth of units. And guess what, while the hellion may not be able to like the vulture kite and kill just about any slower moving melee unit, the reaper can, upgraded reapers can kite and kill speedlings without taking a single hit. How is that any different than vulture micro? Also, vultures should not be brought up at all as any example of a higher learning curve, it is retardedly easy to learn to vulture micro. When I picked up broodwar seriously it took me five minutes to master it, it is not hard. The learning curve comes in when you see how many vultures you can control independent of one another at the same time, exactly the same thing goes for reapers.
Upgraded reapers die to speedlings because they are slower. That's why no one makes them.
On April 28 2010 01:54 Mente wrote: I read through your entire post and came to the conclusion that it was mainly just qq about zerg and protoss "imbalances".
No micro? How bout viking defender advantage against mass bcs? How bout trying to save your hellions from dying whilest microing them while targeting the probes in the most linear path? How bout marauders kiting any unit with shorter range that could dominate them 1 on 1?
I think this game is just as difficult as sc1 is. We don't even have finely tuned build orders yet, or the ability to play on lan latency. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think giving phoenix the ability to shoot on the move will save you from 8 mutas and some scourge.
Also anyone bother to notice that most of the micro he's begging for is based entirely on the magic box concept? Muta micro/corsair anti muta micro is completely null and void if you can't stack them.
Micro still exists.
It still exists, yes, but hardly to the extent of in BW (Hellions against Zerlings, hardly difficult...). Also, what's wrong with the magic box? It added a whole dimension to micro.
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T" this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
EPT
I'm replying to the thread up to post 635, so I apologise in advance for missing anything that crops up after that.
