EPTIncentives to move out on the Map - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
The6357
United States1268 Posts
| ||
|
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. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
thats simply how the game works for me atm... not so fun xd | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 06 2010 01:58 MorroW wrote: personally i make units in my natural then i attack and win or lose thats simply how the game works for me atm... not so fun xd Why should you do anything else if the game does not reward you for it? Exactly what I'm thinking about SC2 atm. I was loling so hard when Rotterdam played in Zotac-cup (I believe it was Zotac) and both players turtelled in base until one player attacked and won and wrote something like: "SC2 is so boring, you just turtle and attack..." It's exactly what SC2 is atm. I'm even exaggerating: it's truly the worst RTS I've ever played in this aspect. xD | ||
|
Snaiil
Sweden312 Posts
Having the Xel'Naga watch towers is also key since you can spot incoming drops and when the enemy moves out. Like you say, most people turtle until they feel confident enough to move out, since I will have the Xel'Naga watch towers, I will see him attacking and know how to react to it, giving me a big advantage. Having your army out on the map doesn't mean you aren't defending, you are defending, scouting and containing at the same time. With good map control, your opponent won't be able to drop your base, use nydus worms or reapers to harass your base since you will see it and hopefully react properly to it. But sure, you can just skip all that and sit in your base macroing while your enemy gathers all the information he needs about you and knows when he can expand, what units he will need and how he can put pressure on you, keeping you contained.  | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On May 06 2010 02:04 kickinhead wrote: Why should you do anything else if the game does not reward you for it? It's not the game's fault at the moment -- it's the players'. As people get good enough to competently harass while watching over their main army and their base, harass will pay off more. The units and abilities are there. People just aren't trying or they're trying and failing. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 06 2010 02:29 Liquid`NonY wrote: It's not the game's fault at the moment -- it's the players'. As people get good enough to competently harass while watching over their main army and their base, harass will pay off more. The units and abilities are there. People just aren't trying or they're trying and failing. Harrassing is one thing, but I would count that to "moving out to attack", with moving out on the Map, I really just mean position yourself around the Map, so that there is "action" going on on other places than the 2 mains or expansions. But It's easily understandable that getting out on the Map to intercept scouting probes, scout for expo's and stuff is useful IF you have the skill of knowing exactly when you have to retreat and without Maphack, I guess this would be too risky even if you are a very skilled player, at least in the near future. | ||
|
hoovehand
United Kingdom542 Posts
big 8 player maps are always the best, because you can stealth expand, therefore a player needs to scout around and move out to keep an eye on the opponent's economy... the blizzard maps are novice maps. you can only expand about 2 times before all minerals are gone and this is also largely at fault for there being no late game in competitive play. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 06 2010 02:56 hoovehand wrote: interesting point, although i believe the map makers are entirely at fault. Not really - Mapmakers can only work with what Blizzard gave them to work with, at least that's my understanding of Mapmaking. I don't know whether Mapmakers will have the possibility to make any changes to this matter other by changing the Map-architecture, but will that be enough without highground-advantage, extremely high mobility of all the races and reatreating meaning loss atm in SC2? I highly doubt it... | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
| ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
The only thing I think thats truly needed is a return to the BW high ground mechanic. It makes sense, it gives an actual advantage to a high ground position. Right now cliffs are very strong for drops, but ramp high ground is basically the same as flat ground. One flying unit completely eliminates high ground advantage, which is silly. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 06 2010 03:44 SichuanPanda wrote: Every single day about 20 threads like this pop up. Quite frankly I'm tired of seeing them - accept SC2 for the game it is or don't play, don't whine about it not being 'BW clone' or a game with a feature set that YOU want. Blizzard went with a certain style and they are sticking with it, and if that is unappealing to people I think they should just accept it and stop making threads about what they think needs changed. Its all personal opinion and hearsay. Oh okay, I may have been mislead by the assumption a Beta-test's whole purpose is actually improving the game. trolls like you really shouldn't be allowed to post anything... -.-° | ||
|
Mios
United States686 Posts
On May 06 2010 03:54 PanzerDragoon wrote:One flying unit completely eliminates high ground advantage, which is silly. Well strategically this would mean if you killed that one flying unit you would have a massive advantage, which I've seen. Terran reveals the observer with scanner and kills it which gives the player an invincible army until he gets vision again. This micro mechanic is fine imo, and its getting more interesting once people get used to it. High ground usually gives a positioning advantage also. I don't think high ground advantage is the problem. If it was changed to the way it was in BW, giving defender's MORE of an advantage, it would provide even less incentive for players to stop turtling. I suppose there could be other spots on the map with high ground and good visibility, but I don't think miss chance is any more fun than lack of vision and changing it wouldnt be enough to get players to move out any more than they do already. There needs to be spots on the map that are crucial to lock down and control, forcing early and constant conflict. Health/Energy/Shield fountain/tower? High yield vespene geysers? Gold expo in the middle on high ground? 10% damage/damage reduction Xel'Naga tower near a base/expo? Mercenary camp in the middle with interesting, useful units? I don't know what they should add, but they should definitely add something thats worth fighting the opponent for. | ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
On May 04 2010 17:02 hacpee wrote: you can get a big portion of your army chopped up retreating. I would say this is the single biggest reason for this in sc2 compared to sc1. In SC1 you'd lose a few units due to bad AI, but that was about it. Now, you really can't retreat without losing huge chunks (and thereby losing the game, anyway); it really penalizes moving your army around. I miss the troop moment you used to see in SC1 with armies constantly moving from one area to another. There is just way too much shit in SC2 that renders you powerless, which really detracts from enjoyment. Imagine how frustrating it would be to play SC1 if e.g. maelstrom or ensnare were on units that you already used, so that every game you dealt with slowed or immobilized units. That's where we are in SC2. | ||
|
KumquatExpress
United States344 Posts
On May 05 2010 18:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: as far as expoing goes, it can be delayed a lot longer in most cases due to having two gas at each spawn... expanding isn't immediately necessary if you can get twice is much gas You still get 5000 gas @ 8 gas per return even if you have both geysers; they're split up into 4/cargo each now, with 2500 total. And they dont work at all after being depleted. Expoing is delayed a lot longer because it's more dangerous to expo with the threat of terrible terrible damage. | ||
|
RodKarew
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 06 2010 05:02 RodKarew wrote: I agree with you the map pool is very limited, but the fact of the matter is blizzard is just going to be lazy on purpose. The reason why is they pretty much are giving the players the tools, aka the map editor to make better maps. The down side of this is they are going to charge a premium price for these player created new maps that are created in the community, which blows pretty hard. I don't really know what the Map-Editor is capable of, but will it be possible to implement any of my changes suggested in the first post other than the one about "Map-Architecture" and "More Xel-Naga Towers..."? | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
Why not make IMBA-skills that kill movement around the Map like concussive shells, Force-Fields and Fungal Growth worse? Those skills are too good anyways and at least concussive shells and Force-Field dominate movement around the Map way too soon and much too strong. I wouldn't mind if they removed concussive shells and force-fields completely, especially concussive shells and I say that even though I play Terran myself! ^^' | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
Certain units are designed to be just as effective while on the move as they are when they are holding ground. I mean, virtually every match-up is played similarly and that's due to how every army composition is so identical in terms of how they move. Also, the fact that these "certain units" have so much attacking power and health doesn't help at all. I think this is to help newer players out and make the game much simpler, but that's a pretty huge hit to the competitive scene. What needs to occur is a complete revamp of how units work, but I don't see that happening in the near future. Funny how it's still in beta and I still get this feeling -.- | ||
|
SexyBimbo
Germany89 Posts
I mean in the worst case scenario Blizzard will totally screw up and top players will discover SC2 to be plain crappy within the next 3 months or so. We can then still wait for a serious promod with a useful high-ground-mechanic and some nice unitchanges and the return of something along the lines of a lurker and mines and actual micro, can we? Can we?? Pls say we can >.< (btw i know splitting the community sucks, but if vanilla sc2 sucks even harder then i know waht i will prefer) SB | ||
| ||
