EPTWho knows it might even make you BM.
Don't forget that at the moment we have the worlds tiniest map pool, and the future map designers can sweep away most of those issues with one stroke of their virtual brush.
Incentives to move out on the Map - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MrCeeJ
United Kingdom57 Posts
Who knows it might even make you BM. Don't forget that at the moment we have the worlds tiniest map pool, and the future map designers can sweep away most of those issues with one stroke of their virtual brush. | ||
|
MrStorkie
United Kingdom697 Posts
i see many players in the lower leagues who are too afraid to move out and eventually they lose the game slowly but surely usually i keep rallying troops to my opponents' base and try to be as aggresive as possible. then it turns out to be a 'how-fast-u-can-macro' fest .. don be afraid to push out and lose units, if they die, macro up another army and push again. moving out is essential to win. | ||
|
GumThief
Canada284 Posts
As a zerg I push creep and bring my groups along with it. I find by a certain time in the game, if all things go accordingly, I am rallying my forces to the -centre+ of the map. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
Things like forcefield, marauder's snare, and zerglings being faster than zealots/marines even without speed upgrade are all big reasons why it's super dangerous to move out with your first few units early in the game. You can't just poke around and then fall back and save your units very easily at all. A bit later on once you have a decent amount of units, like maybe 6+ or so, then I disagree that moving out is bad. But you can't just send your first marine to a zerg's base anymore to poke around like in SC1, for example, because he'll get surrounded by faster lings and killed. Before one of the patches it was dangerous to move out with your first zealot/stalker as well because of the marauder snare. In fact, when marauders still had their snare automatically, you were literally suiciding your first zealot/stalker if you put it anywhere in range of the terran's base. | ||
|
Williowa
129 Posts
On May 05 2010 12:40 MrStorkie wrote: you have to move out if you're playing to win.. i see many players in the lower leagues who are too afraid to move out and eventually they lose the game slowly but surely usually i keep rallying troops to my opponents' base and try to be as aggresive as possible. then it turns out to be a 'how-fast-u-can-macro' fest .. don be afraid to push out and lose units, if they die, macro up another army and push again. moving out is essential to win. Seems to me everyone on the forum that keeps units active around the map are zerg which only reinforces that point. And I don't think spamming units at your opponents base is at all what this thread was talking about. | ||
|
Slurgi
United States118 Posts
Unfortunately, while I agree with you that map control is a fun part of a strategy game, your analysis as to why map control is less crucial are right on the money, and Blizzard has basically said that they won't change any of this. I do like the idea of mines... Although getting narrowly off-topic, blizzard's explanation that highground where "ya-can't-shoot-what-ya-can't-see" is how it is "more intuitive" is really dumb. Every single person who played Starcraft at all realized that shots missed when they shot up cliffs because they literally did not come in contact with the enemy unit. You see it once, and you figure it out. What the hell is so hard about that? | ||
|
Mios
United States686 Posts
in warcraft 3 if you turtled you would get owned because of creep gold, xp, and items. not to mention shops/expos/fountains. in wc3 there is action from beginning to end, and it was a rare occasion when all the creeps are gone, expoing is too risky, so both players macro up for 10mins. this happens way too often in sc2, it makes the game boring to watch and play. one positive thing is that there seems to be more conflict now than when the beta first started. there is a lot more harassing with drops and flying units, and players seem more aggressive about attacking expansions and expanding themselves. I really hope turtling becomes less and less prevalent as players become better, otherwise this game will never be an exciting e-sport. | ||
|
kyama
United States118 Posts
| ||
|
kyama
United States118 Posts
On May 05 2010 14:01 Mios wrote: coming from wc3, this was a problem with sc2 that I noticed right away. in warcraft 3 if you turtled you would get owned because of creep gold, xp, and items. not to mention shops/expos/fountains. in wc3 there is action from beginning to end, and it was a rare occasion when all the creeps are gone, expoing is too risky, so both players macro up for 10mins. this happens way too often in sc2, it makes the game boring to watch and play. one positive thing is that there seems to be more conflict now than when the beta first started. there is a lot more harassing with drops and flying units, and players seem more aggressive about attacking expansions and expanding themselves. I really hope turtling becomes less and less prevalent as players become better, otherwise this game will never be an exciting e-sport. Don't get me wrong, I love playing wc3. But watching it had to be the most boring thing ever. Starcraft 2 is very fun to watch. I think like you said ppl are just not experienced yet and soon you'll see better gameplay. | ||
|
Hyperion2010
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
Toran7
United States160 Posts
On May 05 2010 15 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 05 2010 15 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:06 kyama wrote: I've always been against high ground advantage. It adds too much randomness, which shouldn't be in rts games. There's many reason to move out on the map, and the biggest reason is controlling the map. Plus blizzard said they were not going to change this, so why keep arguing about it? 1: You need to read more than the first few lines in the OP before posting and 2: Explain how strategically placing units on the high ground is LOL SO RANDOM XD | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
On May 04 2010 15:59 wolfe wrote: How about high ground advantage so winning isn't always whoever has the biggest army? Also better maps will always be nice. Like you said I have trouble pushing out when people can raid me so easily so I just sit tight on my natural and really theres not much reason to move out. As noted in one of the news posts, high ground advantage is a pretty big factor in the "i have a bigger army" race. No high ground advantage severely limits any option of staying alive with a smaller army in favor of some tech play. That said, you can still move out for all other reasons you used to move out for in BW. Map control, expansions, pressure, harass, etc. | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
| ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 05 2010 15:50 Toran7 wrote: 1: You need to read more than the first few lines in the OP before posting and 2: Explain how strategically placing units on the high ground is LOL SO RANDOM XD I guess he meant the fact that whether your Units hit or miss up the highround was random. But why is this such a problem? In fact, random (miss and hit having the same chance of occuring every single shot) is a very fair distribution the higher the numbers are and you should know that and play accordingly. Also, highground-advantage does not need to be random, it can also be an Armor-Bonus or a DMG-reduction by a certain percentage. But I totally agree with what some ppl here said: Blizzards argument that their new highground-mechanic is easy to understand doesn't make any sense at all: - SC2 is supposed to be a competetive game, so why make it that easy? Do you really think ppl are that dumb that they don't realize that there is a highground-advantage in SCBW even after only playing like 10 games? - Why do you think you can appeal to newer players by saying the game is much easier? That may be appealing to ppl that will only play single-player anyways on which stuff like that just doesn't have such a great impact as on the competetive scene. But those players won't give a flying fart about the engine of the game etc. they just see the brand "Blizzard" and flashy Units and go with the hype, which is already huge. I really don't know what the true intentions behind stuff like highground-advantage, crappy Unit-control, hard-counter-system etc. is. For me, it kinda looks like Blizzard just realizes they won't be able to fix those problems and come up with shady explanations, which is entirely the wrong thing to do. Personally, I'd rather wait another year for SC2 to come out, but at least it would be perfect, rather than the mess it is right now. @LaSt)ChAnCe: Exactly, They gave ppl 100 reasons not to go out on the Map but none to actually do it - ridiculous. I mean: The whole thing about WC3 was to actually make ppl move out to kill creeps, get items etc. couldn't they come up with something to create what they've successfully done with SCBW and WC3? Atm. SC2 is the most turtle-oriented RTS I've ever played: - Dawn of War 1&2: You have to capture the points all around the Map, so you're constantly moving around with several groups of Units. Also, it has a great cover-mechanic which allows you to hold key-positions on the Map. - SCBW: Highground-advantage, Mines to clear out, less easy to harrass/timing-push, easier to not get all Units out on the Map killed etc. - WC3: killing creeps, buying Items/neutral heroes etc. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
The Ideas are in the OP btw. | ||
|
DminusTerran
Canada1337 Posts
On May 04 2010 16:00 imBLIND wrote: what about scout towers? what about mineral patches that give more money? what about having buildable terrain on the map so people can proxy? how about winning the game? i don't think thats a reason to move out yet is it? You might wanna play more games if you haven't already. This but amp the douchieness and you have the correct answer. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 05 2010 21:03 DminusTerran wrote: This but amp the douchieness and you have the correct answer. This is just not enough... 1) Scout Towers, at least the way they are right now are mostly just being "occupied" by a single Unit. 2) Taking expansions is not what I'm talking about and so obvious it's ridiculous to even mention it IMHO... -.-° Besides, there is even less incentive to take expansions in SC2, with small Maps, very strong timing-pushes and rushes or cheese, 2 gas-geyser's etc. 3) Proxying is no incentive to move out on the Map with your army as well, cuz you only need 1 worker to proxy. ---> Completely missed the point besides being unmanndered. -.-° Fact is, that in SC1, the amount of Attacking-Units that are moving around on the Map is so much higher than in SC2, because there are much less incentives to do so in SC2 but several drawbacks that completely outweigh the rewards of moving out with your army or a part of it to do whatever it is you want to do with them. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 04 2010 15:47 kickinhead wrote: You could secure an advantageous position on the Map to partially contain the enemy and/or control key-positions on the Map. As long as you are in a TvT this works. In all other matchups there are very easy methods to circumvent a "hard to attack choke" with Nydus worms, cliff walking Colossi or warped-in units. These two features are nice ideas, but they are just like a flying or teleportation spell in a roleplaying game: they let you circumvent the dangers of the road or in a fight. | ||
|
cloudJR
United States266 Posts
On May 04 2010 16:11 PH wrote: There's plenty of incentive to move out of your base and onto the map. Having map control is very important. If not the most important lol | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
Do you even think before you post? Why do you think moving out on the Map with several Units serves any purpose in SC2 other than to attack the opponent? Why would you move out with your attack-force or a part of it and therefore have less defense in your base other than to simply attack the enemy base? Again, I'm not talking about getting up an additional Expansion, which is the same turtelling style we see atm, just with one more base... I can't think of one reason why you should move out on the Map and position your army somewhere, but I can think of a whole lot why you shouldnt: 1) High mobility of every race makes counterattacks very dangerous. 2) Small maps with backdoors favour cheese and timing-attacks, which could come at any time of the game, especially if the enemy sees that your whole army is outside of your base. 3) Xel-Naga-Tower can be occupied by 1 Unit, each more Unit is basically a waste. 4) The lousy highground-advantage you get in SC2 is to easy negated to take the risk of leaving your base. 5) Warp-in's, Nydus-worms, cliff-jumping Units, extremely fast Speedlings etc. will just rip your less defended base apart. 6) If you move out with only a part of your Units and the opponent is attacking you, your Army will be split and because it's nearly impossible to retreat without suffering heavy Damage (Marauders, Force-Fields, Speedling-Surround, Fungal Growth etc.) it's GG most of the times. 7) Containing the opponent is much harder because of the overall high mobility of Units, Mapstructure, lack of positional boni etc. This may not be true for every MU and for every race, but it's the overall theme of the game atm. But really - give me 1 reason to move out on the Map just to what you call "control" the Map. It's not really "controlling" the Map IMHO, if the enemy could wipe out your forces on the Map with one clean attack and then kill your base, is it? Mapcontrol can only be achieved when moving out on the Map is rewarded with a certain bonus to your army-strength, otherwise you'd better call it "risking your Units on the Map", because it does make absolutely no sense to let your base be less defended... -.-° Don't just use buzzwords you don't know what they actually mean. | ||
| ||
