On April 30 2010 05:40 verrater wrote: That is what Blizzard is about now in the 21th century. Making the most money and selling the most games. A simpler game is easier to sell to the casual fans and there are a lot more casual fans than hardcore ones (even if you include korea!)
Blizzard have been doing that with all their new games. Wow is the same.
shut up noob.
Thats really all I have to say to these shitty comments that just detract from the overall quality of the message that is suppose to be communicated here (Moving shot)
On April 30 2010 06:28 Archerofaiur wrote: 60 frickin pages! I wonder why this article hasnt been featured in TL news yet? Do the TL leadership disagree with the conclusions of the article?
I think the Teamliquid communities mind is pretty much made up on this issue. I mrean just look at the results of this poll.
On April 30 2010 06:02 madcow305 wrote: I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
I'm sorry I lied, I had to come back for this just because of how ridiculous it is. Let me fix some words for you because you clearly were confused
1. Keeping Arbiter cloak up on his entire army, using as few number of arbiters as possible so that you still have arbiters left to stasis. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their arbiters so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his dragoons and zealots are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of tanks, vultures, and goliaths can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few dragoons or zealots out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
(very few because korean pros are a league and a mile ahead of any foreigner)
3. Have his dragoons always targeting tanks, not vultures. dragoons gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at tanks, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a vulture are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a vulture by a dragoon is a potential +10 damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your dragoons on a control group of 12 units, and target fire tanks, due to overkill. dragoon shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single tank will overkill it, wasting dragoon shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP and tank splash
6. Use stasis as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a mutha fucking stork, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
And then on TOP of that, you need to be dodging emps and firing stasis fields in an epic air battle of vessels vs arbiters above the main battle. You also need to lay mines/defuse mines and make sure your zealots drag mines instead of attacking them and dying. Also, make sure your obs don't overlap fields of vision so you can get maximum detection for the least number of observers. oh and make sure your arbiters aren't fighting goliaths. On top of that, you want to be careful how much you stasis because if you stasis too many, the reinforcements will come as they unfreeze and own your face.
And then if you're not Best, utilize shuttle reaver micro and make sure your reaver is doing as much dmg possible per shot. And try to storm areas that are the most heavily concentrated. But storm carefully as you don't want to hit your own zealots. You may or may not have a shuttle for your hightemplar to micro with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Damn thats pretty easy. We should tell all the progamers to do this build more so they stop getting roflstomped by flash.
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common SC2 battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't reached the top level of micro as you outline here. Watching some of the top-level tournaments the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I come from an Age of Empires background so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible.
My opinion is that most of the maps we have so far are too restrictive with choke points etc so that most battles are just head on collisions whereas if there were more open spaces you could have your army spread out to perform flanking manuevers on weaker parts of your enemy's army. E.G have your Zealots / Hellions / Zerglings off to the side to ambush your opponents rear line of Hydras. While your Immortals / Mauraders / Roaches hold the front line...
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common Broodwar battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't Been able to get past E rank in iccup, or ever played broodwar at all. Watching some of the progames the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I have no idea about broodwar so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible. I'm glad broodwar had these features
My opinion is that I want to play either fastest maps or zero clutter maps
On April 30 2010 06:35 Rokk wrote: Probably because of the tone of the article. Nony posted early on agreeing with the points about moving shots, but strongly disagreed with how the article presented itself.
I agree. I think if the author had taken a more appropriate tone it would have been featured.
Might've been featured, but with 10-15 pages of comments instead of 60.
It's all about impact. I honestly don't think Blizzard cares about the bashing if you've got a valid point to make. I do however think it's easier for them to just ignore the issue if it's an article that doesn't create enough of an impact. If people don't care enough to make their voices heard.
Most of the paragraphs that came off as negative and "irrelevant" were added pretty much last minute. I did receive the advice to tone down the bashing and perhaps even send it in beforehand to have someone from TL have a look at it. But I didn't want to go through those channels, and just went ahead and posted it unedited.
*: I personally didn't feel like I was being too negative or hating. It was written half in jest, half serious; I thought the anecdote at the end would somehow symbolize that. Guess mixing in the parts about asking more of Blizzard gave it a more serious tone than I intended and conveyed the wrong feeling. Intended it to be taken more as mocking and joking than arguing in a "negative tone".
On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote: Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former.
This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill.
On April 30 2010 06:35 Rokk wrote: Probably because of the tone of the article. Nony posted early on agreeing with the points about moving shots, but strongly disagreed with how the article presented itself.
I agree. I think if the author had taken a more appropriate tone it would have been featured.
Might've been featured, but with 10-15 pages of comments instead of 60.
It's all about impact. I honestly don't think Blizzard cares about the bashing if you've got a valid point to make. I do however think it's easier for them to just ignore the issue if it's an article that doesn't create enough of an impact. If people don't care enough to make their voices heard.
Most of the paragraphs that came off as negative and "irrelevant" were added pretty much last minute. I did receive the advice to tone down the bashing and perhaps even send it in beforehand to have someone from TL have a look at it. But I didn't want to go through those channels, and just went ahead and posted it unedited.
Blizzard CM have stated repeatedly that they really dislike people who "Shout the loudest, it doesn't mean they're right". (Referring to people who sensationalize there posts) CM are the poeple who forward info to devs.
The only real post I can think of that caused a paradigm shift within blizzards design and really resulted in a lot of changes as a direct result was a post in the WC3 beta. Rather then sensationalizing, they literally wrote like ten pages of analysis regarding the current state of balance in a respectful tone.
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way.
blizzard will never make the game balanced until they stop trying to cater to some "cool" units and abilities that our good friend dustin happens to like. also, as far as i knew the piont of a sequel is to expand on the first, not to completely make something new that is unrelated to what you had before
On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote: Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former.
This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill.
Having good mechanics is neither skill nor talent, but rather a combination of the two. You can't say it's one or the other.
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common SC2 battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't reached the top level of micro as you outline here. Watching some of the top-level tournaments the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I come from an Age of Empires background so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible.
My opinion is that most of the maps we have so far are too restrictive with choke points etc so that most battles are just head on collisions whereas if there were more open spaces you could have your army spread out to perform flanking manuevers on weaker parts of your enemy's army. E.G have your Zealots / Hellions / Zerglings off to the side to ambush your opponents rear line of Hydras. While your Immortals / Mauraders / Roaches hold the front line...
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common Broodwar battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't Been able to get past E rank in iccup, or ever played broodwar at all. Watching some of the progames the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I have no idea about broodwar so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible. I'm glad broodwar had these features
My opinion is that I want to play either fastest maps or zero clutter maps
I'm sorry, this one is just hilarious.
Uh sorry what? I wasn't referring to Broodwar in any way. I was just saying that there is definately a good amount of micro required to play SC2.
I don't think you're negative attitude is helping your case it just makes you look like another sour old SC1 vet.
On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote: I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way.
I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW
Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable.
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common SC2 battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't reached the top level of micro as you outline here. Watching some of the top-level tournaments the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I come from an Age of Empires background so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible.
My opinion is that most of the maps we have so far are too restrictive with choke points etc so that most battles are just head on collisions whereas if there were more open spaces you could have your army spread out to perform flanking manuevers on weaker parts of your enemy's army. E.G have your Zealots / Hellions / Zerglings off to the side to ambush your opponents rear line of Hydras. While your Immortals / Mauraders / Roaches hold the front line...
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common Broodwar battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't Been able to get past E rank in iccup, or ever played broodwar at all. Watching some of the progames the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I have no idea about broodwar so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible. I'm glad broodwar had these features
My opinion is that I want to play either fastest maps or zero clutter maps
I'm sorry, this one is just hilarious.
Uh sorry what? I wasn't referring to Broodwar in any way. I was just saying that there is definately a good amount of micro required to play SC2.
I don't think you're negative attitude is helping your case it just makes you look like another sour old SC1 vet.
Oh I was just changing your post to make it more correct. Nvm. I don't mean to be negative, i've just been posting in this thread every few hours trying to correct people. Only to be talked down to be people who have litterally 0 idea of what they're talking about. Nothing wrong with that, it just makes my mood rather sour after a while. I'll try to be more.. nice?
1. I AM a sour old SC1 vet (what can I say, it's in my blood) 2. I'm not posting a case, i'm just trying to correct incorrect statements and present facts.
On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote: I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way.
I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW
Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable.
Not shown in video: Mine defuse micro
If the effect of an ability is not the same, you cannot apply them in the same way, regardless of what role the units play. Zealots inherently cannot be microed as well as Stalkers. Immortals are for the sole purpose of destroying armored units in general, rather than being general go-to units. Sentries and Arbiters are both spellcasters, but are both incredibly different.
Can you compare the Infestor to the Defiler? They share the same role, don't they? Or can you compare Vikings to Goliaths? Colossi to Reavers? Hellions to Vultures? Answer, plzplz.
On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote: Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former.
This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill.
Having good mechanics is neither skill nor talent, but rather a combination of the two. You can't say it's one or the other.
Skill doesn't "override" talent, and vice-versa.
No, but skill includes talent. Skill is how well you do something. Talent may contribute a small or large amount. Saying I am skilled at drawing does not mean I am a talented artist, while saying I am a talented artist generally indicates that I am skilled.
On April 30 2010 01:28 GrizzlyAdam wrote: I read the article (which I found to be well thought-out), and most of the 50+ pages of comments that followed, and I have to say I agree with the OP. I don't think adding moving shots will cure everything, but it will help.
What I have to disagree with, however, is the attitude in which the article was written, and many of the comments that followed. Many of you are acting like Blizzard has personally hurt you in some way, and you're using your "I'm a platinum/high-gold player" status to justify name-calling and saying that SC2 is for "lolnoobs." If you want to be taken seriously by Blizzard or the community as a whole, you have to have an unbiased tone and be professional. If you want your voice to be heard over those of the "noobs," yours has to be the one of calm and reason that invites everyone to see your point of view, not of insults towards Blizzard, its dev team, and a large part of the SC2 community.
I mean no disrespect to the OP or any of the posters here, I merely suggest a different tone of voice is necessary to gain overall support and adoption for your proposal.
Sometimes I think some new posters are really good contributors. This guy has 8 posts and can see what we can't in our blind rage. We should all manner up and act professional while complaining to Blizzard in a much more serious fashion. You could read earlier in the thread how I jumped upon the bandwagon and flamed Dustin Browder. Now I still don't like him very much but I wouldn't talk about it anymore, just make my suggestions to Blizzard.
On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote: Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former.
This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill.
Having good mechanics is neither skill nor talent, but rather a combination of the two. You can't say it's one or the other.
Skill doesn't "override" talent, and vice-versa.
No, but skill includes talent. Skill is how well you do something. Talent may contribute a small or large amount. Saying I am skilled at drawing does not mean I am a talented artist, while saying I am a talented artist generally indicates that I am skilled.
Skill is not how well you do something; at least, not entirely. Skill comprises of your ability to do things you have LEARNED.
Talent and skill are different entities. They complement each other, but do not apply to the same things.
Generally, talents and skills should not be be grouped together. For example, a choir member is naturally able to sing well. Singing is a talent. Reading music, however, is a skill. When "grouped" together, people generally refer to them as talented musicians, which is actually incorrect. You can't group them together at all ("good musician" would be much better)
On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote: I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way.
I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW
Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable.
Not shown in video: Mine defuse micro
If the effect of an ability is not the same, you cannot apply them in the same way, regardless of what role the units play. Zealots inherently cannot be microed as well as Stalkers. Immortals are for the sole purpose of destroying armored units in general, rather than being general go-to units. Sentries and Arbiters are both spellcasters, but are both incredibly different.
Can you compare the Infestor to the Defiler? They share the same role, don't they? Or can you compare Vikings to Goliaths? Colossi to Reavers? Hellions to Vultures? Answer, plzplz.
Yes Stalkers = dragoons as the standard ranged backbone unit Immortals = Zealots used to absorb shots, and deal large amounts damage (zealots through tanksplash, their own attack, and mine dragging Arbiters = support spellcaster, used to disrupt terran defensive advantage through cloaking, recall, and stasis (in sc2, the arbiter was basically nerfed and split up into sentry/mothership/phoenix gravbeam) Infestor = way nerfed defiler due to the fact that such imba units at low levels are difficult to deal with and people like you would complain about it. Actually, i'm pretty sure everyone complains about them but thats a moot point Thor = Goliath. Terran mech used to have difficulty balancing pop between air defense and ground power. Blizzard makes it easier by buffing the goli so they rape both air and ground Colossi = reaver with less micro, less potential, and half as cool Hellion = vulture with no micro potential (besides "kiting" which didn't even count as micro in BW)
I'm just trying to help because you are trying to argue on a Starcraft forum without any knowledge of Starcraft. I accept that with the new influx of users, there are bound to be a giant population of people who don't know what they are talking about. I'm just trying to get you up to speed no hard feelings
I didn't read all 60 pages of replies to this thread, but the title of the OP is definitely misleading. Your title makes it sound as if Micro as a whole is not as big a part of SC2 as it was in SC1, but your content only talks about a single SC1 Micro trick: the moving shot.
Yes, the moving shot isn't present in SC2, but that doesn't mean SC2 has less micro involved.
In fact, the very proliferation of high bonus damage against specific armor types, which you also complained about in your OP, leads to very micro-intensive battles.
Lets take a PvT early battle as an example: Protoss are fond of a 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing push against Terrans.
Stalker/Sentry/Immortal/Zealot vs. Marine/Marauder/Ghost. In this battle, the Protoss needs to be doing a few things:
1. Keeping Guardian shield up on his entire army, using as few number of shields as possible so that you still have energy to Forcefield. This might seem easy, but how many people have you actually seen Micro their Sentries so that the shields cover their whole army, but don't overlap too much?
2. Form a good firing arc, in which all his Stalkers and Immortals are shooting at targets, but be as far range as possible at the same time so that the least amount of Marauders and Marines can fire back. Sounds easy, but how many battles have you witnessed where the Protoss has a few Stalkers or an Immortal out of range to fire, and they're just wandering aimlessly in the back lines, trying to move forward?
3. Have his Stalkers and Immortals always targeting Marauders, not Marines. Stalkers and Immortals gain large bonus damage chunks by shooting at Marauders, so ideally they should never fire a single shot against a Marine until all the Marauders are dead or are too far away. A single shot on a Marine by an Immortal is a potential +30 bonus damage being wasted.
4. At the same time, you can't just have all your Stalkers and Immortals on a single control group, and target fire Marauders, due to overkill. Stalker shots aren't instant, so I believe too many firing on a single Marauder will overkill it, wasting Stalker shots.
5. Have your forces spread out as much as possible to reduce the effect of EMP.
6. Use Forcefield as needed to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and keep Terran reinforcements away for as long as possible.
These individual points might sound easy for a Top 10 Plat, but here's the kicker: you have to be doing all of this at the same time.
You have to be doing #2, forming a good firing arc in which all your units are the perfect distance to do max damage and take min damage, while at the same time doing #5, making sure they're spread out as far as possible to reduce EMP damage.
You have to be doing #1, Microing your Sentries so that GS covers your whole army, while doing #3 and #4, constantly Microing your Stalkers and Immortals so they always shoot Marauders, while never overkilling any.
Are you doing this all perfectly, every battle, every game? No? Well then you're not utilizing the Micro potential of SC2 to its fullest. Oh, and lets not forget, you have to be doing all of this in the span of ~7 seconds, before the battle is already over and decided with.
Compare the scenario I described above to the common Protoss Bulldog timing attack vs. Terran Siege-Expand opening in SC1:
1. Drop your Zealots and bomb the tanks.
2. Shoot-move your Dragoons in until they're in range to shoot the tank(s), then target-fire the tank(s). Make sure not to overkill.
That's it. Two steps.
Sure SC2 may not have the number of Micro tricks (read: game engine bugs, aka Muta stacking) that SC1 had. But, that doesn't mean Micro is less prevalent in SC2.
My favourite reply to this thread. Great breakdown of the micro needed in a common SC2 battle. I think most players complaining about lack of micro still haven't reached the top level of micro as you outline here. Watching some of the top-level tournaments the top players are still making massive mistakes so we have a long way to go before we "run out" of micro opportunities.
I come from an Age of Empires background so I'm used to the bonus damage vs certain unit types idea. Most people seem to not like it but as madcow says it actually gives more room for micro. Instead of just bashing armies together you need to make sure your units are getting the most bonus damage possible.
My opinion is that most of the maps we have so far are too restrictive with choke points etc so that most battles are just head on collisions whereas if there were more open spaces you could have your army spread out to perform flanking manuevers on weaker parts of your enemy's army. E.G have your Zealots / Hellions / Zerglings off to the side to ambush your opponents rear line of Hydras. While your Immortals / Mauraders / Roaches hold the front line...
Unfortunately, madcow's post is plainly ardent and partisan in favor of SC2. His example is flawed because it distorts large portions of the wealth of complexity inherent in BW army-micro and ignores the relationship between efficiency and investment (or feasibility).
Protoss were known to be the race that required the least amount of micro in BW, but even if we ignore the skewed nature of his example (which conveniently ignores casters - compare the Arbiter cloak to the Guardian Shield) Dragoons still need to position themselves and micro against Vultures/Mines (in relation to tanks), which is in no way different from SC2 positioning and anti-Marauder micro.
Still, I admit we often see lapses of Dragoon micro in BW (even amongst progamers). However, this is no different from the, as madcow argues, 'lacking' micro of many SC2 players! Why? The reason is the other part of the crux of micro - efficiency vs investment. Put simply, Mutalisk micro is a skill honed by progamers because it is highly efficient. My question is thus, is the effort put into Dragoon (and Stalker) micro (in relation to other actions) efficient enough to warrant the same kind of investment (both in-game and during practice)?
PS. BW did use 'bonus damage', it just wasn't as ridiculously pronounced as in SC2.
As for the OP, as thinly veiled as his contempt is, he makes a great point. I would argue that the 'problems' of SC2 lie in finding a balance between the words 'diversity, versitality and viability' as pertaining to the units and their interrelationships, as well as micro. If the game can't support a wealth of tactical unit combinations, it doesn't matter how good the macro mechanics or how many options for build orders there are since the game will never evolve a meta-game that comes anywhere near the strategical or tactical depth and diversity of BW.
On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote: I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way.
I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW
Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable.
Not shown in video: Mine defuse micro
If the effect of an ability is not the same, you cannot apply them in the same way, regardless of what role the units play. Zealots inherently cannot be microed as well as Stalkers. Immortals are for the sole purpose of destroying armored units in general, rather than being general go-to units. Sentries and Arbiters are both spellcasters, but are both incredibly different.
Can you compare the Infestor to the Defiler? They share the same role, don't they? Or can you compare Vikings to Goliaths? Colossi to Reavers? Hellions to Vultures? Answer, plzplz.
Yes Stalkers = dragoons as the standard ranged backbone unit Immortals = Zealots used to absorb shots, and deal large amounts damage (zealots through tanksplash, their own attack, and mine dragging Arbiters = support spellcaster, used to disrupt terran defensive advantage through cloaking, recall, and stasis (in sc2, the arbiter was basically nerfed and split up into sentry/mothership/phoenix gravbeam) Infestor = way nerfed defiler due to the fact that such imba units at low levels are difficult to deal with and people like you would complain about it. Actually, i'm pretty sure everyone complains about them but thats a moot point Thor = Goliath. Terran mech used to have difficulty balancing pop between air defense and ground power. Blizzard makes it easier by buffing the goli so they rape both air and ground Colossi = reaver with less micro, less potential, and half as cool Hellion = vulture with no micro potential (besides "kiting" which didn't even count as micro in BW)
I'm just trying to help because you are trying to argue on a Starcraft forum without any knowledge of Starcraft. I accept that with the new influx of users, there are bound to be a giant population of people who don't know what they are talking about. I'm just trying to get you up to speed no hard feelings
If you can prove that all mechanics from SC1 apply to SC2 in the same way, I will concede. Until then, much of what you said is pretty pointless.
Example: Air units are not as prevalent in SC2 as they were in SC1. Thor's AA capabilities are good, but are no where close to the usefulness of the Goliath's AA. To compensate, the Thor has a much better ground attack. It is also much more expensive. Same niche? Not at all.
EPT
