| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On May 20 2010 15:07 JreL209 wrote: Still what does that have to do with the game lol...... This means that in sc2, games between pros will be more about unit composition rather than unit micro. | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
On May 20 2010 15:29 darmousseh wrote: micro is not strategy, micro is the ability to tactically use the units in the most optimal way possible. now micro is more about positioning, move out slighty injured units, blinking, force fields, surrounding, timing the attack and runs, moving the correct units to adjust for spells, focus firing a unit, etc. Just because there are less micro micros doesn't mean micro is gone, its just there are less to focus on and learn. Reading comprehension is good to. Let me state it again. Micro is not strategy, but it opens up opportunities for new strategies. Without it, bigger army wins. What's the best strategy? No cutting a few things here and there, doing some harass, etc, it's big army. Big army. Micro is not strategy, but it sure as hell contributes to it. Now read my whole last post and not the first line. In fact, you will probably read where I agree micro is not strategy if you read it. | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
On May 20 2010 14:02 darmousseh wrote: or basically what someone said sc2 is about "positional play, large army control, and strategy." instead of twitch micro Or as more say: Sc2 is about 1a. There's a reason why you can be in plat with 70 APM, it's because you really don't have to do anything to be decent at the game. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On May 20 2010 15:39 rackdude wrote: Or as more say: Sc2 is about 1a. There's a reason why you can be in plat with 70 APM, it's because you really don't have to do anything to be decent at the game. lol sorry, I mostly meant this line specifically "Being able to live with a smaller army is what makes a game strategy" Like you said, tactics affect strategy but don't define it. My idea, like in chess is that once you master tactics, then you can focus on mastering strategy. In sc1 mastering tactics was extremely difficult (for non-koreans) and not nearly as much in sc2. This means pros will be focusing more on mastering strategies once they quickly master the tactics. | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On May 20 2010 15:02 darmousseh wrote: Also i think thelittleone and idra are perfect examples of the upcoming sc2 player pro. Idra focusing more on coming up with on the fly strategies and idra with intense macro play. So... what does TLO do? | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
On May 20 2010 15:42 darmousseh wrote: lol sorry, I mostly meant this line specifically "Being able to live with a smaller army is what makes a game strategy" Like you said, tactics affect strategy but don't define it. My idea, like in chess is that once you master tactics, then you can focus on mastering strategy. In sc1 mastering tactics was extremely difficult (for non-koreans) and not nearly as much in sc2. This means pros will be focusing more on mastering strategies once they quickly master the tactics. Why don't you make both difficult to master? That way you can have different kinds of players. In chess some do more tactics. Some throw more gambits etc. Others do more positional and safe play. In SC2, it's tough to be able to throw a gambit (like, split an army to take out an expansion) because of how 1a bigger army wins the game is. It's when all of those possibilities open up that strategies form. For example, look at SC1 PvZ. Most people will fast expand, but you can 1 base. It is possible to do a ling runby, but it is also possible to stop. It is possible to do a zealot push early, but that's also possible to stop. Hydra breaks add a completely different dynamic to the game, and the game shifts the moment the first mutas are out. The balance on the field shifts when templar get out. Etc. So how does a game like that get to ultras and reavers duking it out? Well, during the hydra time, Protoss can hide behind cannons and just barely survive. They can poke around with zealots and try hurting stuff because of the defensive advantage. Once templar come out, the Zerg can put up sunkens and use lings as ways to not kill but effectively slow the push and stall until you have a good placement of lurkers and ultras come out. That's the strategy that we see. We go, Oh cool! That's what's awesome about it. But how does it actually work? It works for many reasons. The way lings are, it's POSSIBLE, but not easy to just run by. Probes will block you and the AI will get messed up. So both sides can take a chance because micro gives them the chance. Then once the zealot push comes, the ling speed gives the defenders advantage to the Zerg. A group of lings that could not take a group of zealots head on can stop the push if microed correctly. This lets the Zerg power and get to hydras and lurkers. This will push to your front, but proper storms will have allowed the Protoss to simply not just die. Also, with the mutas, the moving shot on the corsairs allows a small pack of corsairs fend off a larger group of mutas (with cannons underneath) and thus lets the Protoss focus on templar. When the templar push comes out, the positional game of the lurkers and microing the lings around lets the superior Protoss army not just walk right over and smack the Zerg in the face. So you see the strategy that is at the heart of it depends on the micro to make it work. The micro is not the strategy, but it allows such strategic play to be possible. | ||
|
KULA_u
Switzerland107 Posts
(Green Berets = non-military-trained guys with micro (tactical knowledge etc) but smaller guns) SC1: 5 Green Berets vs 7 non-military-trained guys with bigger guns --> Green Berets win, because they used tactics. SC2: 5 Green Berets vs 7 non-military-trained guys with bigger guns --> Green Berets don't stand a chance. 5 Green Berets vs 4 non-military-trained guys with bigger guns --> Green Berets probably win. (it's slightly exaggerated, of course, but not by much) the great thing about SC1 is, that you have to make a choice: you have 100 (or 300, doesn't matter) and have to allocate them to macro and micro. here, investing in heavy micro makes sense, because you can gain a lot out of it. in SC2, this is also the case to a certain point, but you gain a lot less by microing. accordingly, you invest more in macro, which makes watching the game much less interesting. sure, in the first 2-3 years, with new addons and new units comming with expansions, this is not that important. but once the strategy-pool is exhausted, it is micro that makes games fun to watch. Why don't you make both difficult to master? exactly: both should be difficult to master. that makes for a way more interesting game. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
sc1. chuck norris vs 20 marines (chuck norris wins because of micro) sc2 chuck norris vs 20 marines (marines own after losing 2-3 marines) | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 20 2010 14:44 darmousseh wrote: lol, i'm sorry that you feel that way. One of my best friends is a hardcore sc1 guy and he is upset with the major change in mechanics as well. Here's a graph for me to illustrate what will happen because of the high importance of macro compared to micro. ![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/2u40hs3.jpg) My point is that the difference between pros and non-pros will be much more subtle but not nearly as subtle as it is in chess, but definitely more subtle than sc1. This means more pros and a higher quality of games. In the end, even in chess, there are a few 3-4 who are just a notch above the rest. The SC1 chart is flat out wrong. Up until maybe the C- level on ICCup (which, in the grand scheme of things, covers the vast majority of the chart), macro vastly outweighs micro in importance, simply because below that point, most players don't have the mechanical ability to perform a lot of micro in a productive fashion. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
TLO is able to adapt his strategy during his play. In sc1, players would pick a strategy, make minor adjustments to their strategy, but usually don't completely change their strat mid-game. TLO can do amazing transitions by scouting predicting and adapating. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On May 20 2010 17:17 TheYango wrote: The SC1 chart is flat out wrong. Up until maybe the C- level on ICCup, macro vastly outweighs micro in importance, simply because below that point, most players don't have the mechanical ability to perform a lot of micro in a productive fashion. yeah i think i should adjust the macro part, but the micro part is definitely true. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
| ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
On May 20 2010 15:42 darmousseh wrote: lol sorry, I mostly meant this line specifically "Being able to live with a smaller army is what makes a game strategy" Like you said, tactics affect strategy but don't define it. My idea, like in chess is that once you master tactics, then you can focus on mastering strategy. In sc1 mastering tactics was extremely difficult (for non-koreans) and not nearly as much in sc2. This means pros will be focusing more on mastering strategies once they quickly master the tactics. Did you read the entire thread? It's basically people like you (who don't play broodwar) who keep bumping the thread, trying to make the claim that since there is less micro, sc2 is more strategy. Then, Teamliquid (the people who actually play broodwar) comes in to say that if you have apples and oranges, having less apples does not make more oranges. It just makes for less food overall. sc2 has less micro. sc2 has less strategy. Everything you could possibly think of that is difficult in sc2, it's twice as hard in broodwar. Until you at least break D+ in iccup, please don't say otherwise. | ||
|
Perfect Balance
Norway131 Posts
On May 20 2010 20:28 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Did you read the entire thread? It's basically people like you (who don't play broodwar) who keep bumping the thread, trying to make the claim that since there is less micro, sc2 is more strategy. Then, Teamliquid (the people who actually play broodwar) comes in to say that if you have apples and oranges, having less apples does not make more oranges. It just makes for less food overall. sc2 has less micro. sc2 has less strategy. Everything you could possibly think of that is difficult in sc2, it's twice as hard in broodwar. Until you at least break D+ in iccup, please don't say otherwise. Exactly. I can understand certain players who are happy that they can finally compete with better skilled players, and even beat them because of the incredible disadvantage of missed scouting opportunities. They feel that Starcraft 2 is a better game because the playing field has been evened out, you can beat someone who is considerably better at micro and macro because of the impossible task of scouting Zerg, or hard counters from T/P. Starcraft 2, in many ways, remind me of C&C3, which by no means was a bad game. It was about using unit A against unit B. That's all the Starcraft 2 developers know, especially the leadership. That's what they think RTS games are. | ||
|
Eggm
United States152 Posts
On May 20 2010 14:58 darmousseh wrote: what will happen is that determining the "losing move" is much more difficult and perfect play becomes significantly more important in all aspects. In sc1 you can say, oh look, he microed that unit back and forth 20 times and eventually sniped that gas and that won the game, these were obvious just by the reactions of commentators. In sc2, losing a game might come down to building a stalker when you should have built a sentry which is a lot harder to figure out. And that's a good thing? That's what's fun to you? Is that entertaining for some one watching? From a spectators standpoint I'd rather see unit perfectly microed back and forth 20 times instead of 2 armies colliding and one army has a slightly better army composition and wins cause of it. That's boring as hell. Its also pretty hard to see what's going on in a huge battle from a spectator standpoint unless your watching a replay so its even worse. | ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
On May 20 2010 14:58 darmousseh wrote: what will happen is that determining the "losing move" is much more difficult and perfect play becomes significantly more important in all aspects. In sc1 you can say, oh look, he microed that unit back and forth 20 times and eventually sniped that gas and that won the game, these were obvious just by the reactions of commentators. In sc2, losing a game might come down to building a stalker when you should have built a sentry which is a lot harder to figure out. Ok.. How about, in broodwar, losing a game might come down to building a zealot when you should have build a dragoon. But unlike sc2, you don't have the time to just 1a while you think about it, you have to be microing like a champ WHILE you try to decide which one to make. | ||
|
deadalnix
France120 Posts
I suppose it separates the elites from the casual players, but shouldn't the elites be separated by strategy rather than raw click-speed? I think you make a mistake here. Raw click speed isn't the key thing in starcraft. But raw click allow pgm to have news usage of they're unit, or make viable news strategies. And this is the point  | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
I suppose it separates the elites from the casual players, but shouldn't the elites be separated by strategy rather than raw click-speed? What is wrong with it when APM actually used for Micro or Multitasking remains a skill factor even on high levels? Actually that's a huge part of what makes pro games so interesting. If you cannot tell who will win just from the strategic point such as "he build his starport too late" but rather from the micro point such as "This battle can go either way". | ||
|
Skyze
Canada2324 Posts
SC2, you actually have the option to play off 1 base and still survive, because tech units are so strong in SC2. Now im not sure if that is a good solution, but its a solution non-the-less, better than SC1 which became such a boring macro intensive game (i do know most of you guys WANT those macro intensive games, like Idra for example, thinking every game ending under 20 minutes is "cheese".. but I miss the old days of Boxer, Yellow, Reach, Nada.. where they did amazing micro moves to win them the games, not just sit in their base til 200/200 then attack. I can barely watch BW games now unless its a very unique player who breathes "life" into the game, like Fantasy.. Flash is the most boring player in the world by far for me.) I relate it to MMA, how someone like GSP can dominate every fight on the ground, but its boring as fuck.. yet you have some knockout artists who can never win the belt.. But they are such as hell WAY more exciting to watch. We need to get more of a mix of the two, instead of having the game become one dimensional like GSP has been his last ~7 fights. Its not a fun spectator sport when MMA becomes a pure wrestling match.. just like SC becoming a pure macro match... Altho I think it goes with the game.. BW and SC2 will become the RTS that revolves around "macro".. I guess theres no denying thats the future of SC2, it will become exactly like BW is, once some korean figures out the perfect way to secure their first expo that also can defend every single strategy, making it the "perfect build".. | ||
|
Goobahfish
Australia71 Posts
Umm, have you tried understanding what's going on? Hmmm... yes. I suppose I probably should have better explained myself in more detail as I'm not fond of walls of text. Moving shot is a programming anomaly. By having animation lengths different from cooldowns, it creates a window of opportunity where a unit can act normally during the gap between animation and cooldown. Just to demonstrate I have some idea about what I am talking about, the best example unit is not the corsair. The best unit to demonstrate the principle is the devourer. Devourer could shoot, reverse, wait for their attack cooldown to reset and then re-engage. This allowed devourers to take pot-shots at BC 1 for 1 rather than 2 for 1 (BC's have a faster cooldown). The exploit which the original poster was pointing out was that the unit speed was not tied to attack animation and thus you could attack 'on-the-move' by using extra mouse/keyboard commands. This is not micro... this is an exploit reliant on higher click-speed rather than any underlying strategy or intelligence. It's like being better a FPS because you know that running diagonally is faster than running straight. Maybe units should be able to move and attack simultaneously, maybe not. If they are, I would hope that mechanic was built into the game rather than by executing an exploit which requires and extra 20 APM to use effectively. Just like SC2 vs SC1 casters. SC2 casters are weaker because the APM load has reduced. Being able to micro 6 templar to maximum effect in SC1 was a god-awful nightmare. In SC2 they've reduced the burden on the player which gives more time for other things. Besides a smaller army can beat a bigger army with strategy rather than micro. A small force can hold a big force on a ramp. A small force can force a big force out of position to defend an expansion. These are all strategic uses of units which is interesting to watch. I admit that watching two players build up an army and one player hosing because of poor unit match up is boring to watch, but I'm pretty sure this stems from issues other than "moving shot"... Your strategy-only game must be great with only the "build army" button... Come on, that is just cheap... I am not advocating a game for 1 APM players. I'm just pointing out that exploits that rely on higher APM aren't exactly what I look for in a game. Finally: I've noticed that there have been a lot of posts saying 'less skilled players can beat higher skilled players', 'skill gap shortening'. This can only be true if the reliance on luck in games is increasing (I am yet to be convinced). Consequently, it merely represents a change in what 'being skilled' means and that traditional SC1 players need to update their skill set. | ||
| ||
RSL Revival
Season 4: Playoffs Day 5
TriGGeR vs CureLIVE!
ByuN vs Rogue
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
Bly vs TBD
TriGGeR vs Lambo
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
