|
Hello everybody,
I've just gotten into SC2 a couple months ago and it has been my pleasure to experience this game ever so much. I've dabbled in some sc1 but not at the point of being any good or knowing too much about it. So please correct me if I make any mistakes during this rant. After watching many Day[9] dailies (God bless you), replays, playing hours of sc2 and reading many topic forums; I feel like sc2 is more of a Macro style of game, rather than a micro. You build a certain strategy, you are either all in or you macro to win. It almost feels like that micro (which is required to be good) is not the factor in winning a majority of games. Do you guys think that there should be a balance between the two? That you need to have exceptional micro as well as macro?
My biggest concern is the high priority targeting in sc2, now correct me if I'm wrong but sc1 does not have this right? Why I feel that taking this option out of the game can correct a bunch of issues and make games more balanced between the macro and micro.
For example: Siege tanks have been on many peoples complaints playing against this unit that automatically targeting higher priority groups rather than a lower priority. It should be up to player to target what he wants to attack in the group rather then have it be automatic. If the other player has good micro and lets say positions a bunch of zealots to rush in right before his main army, the computer will auto target what will be the best way to shoot down the opposing army. Thus making it so the Terran player can happily macro his heart away while pretty much leaving his force unattended.
Now that was one of the more extreme examples since, well, siege tanks you don't really micro them that much anyways. But what about toss vs zerg when I want to throw in some DTs in the mix of my army? If the Zerg has detection the army will automatically target DTs over the other 1a units with out even having to micro. The player should have to micro the units to attack the specific units. Not to take away auto attack but if you aren't good enough to micro and extremely good at macro the game does not punish it as much as it should be.
|
For what its worth, I'm of the opinion that macro is so much easier in SC2 that you've got a helluva lot of time to focus on micro...
For a newer player, though, yes... Focus on building your macro. That alone can get you to Diamond.
|
Do You want to make mindless race which strength is in mass flooding planets army of flowers,just growin' there? HEY GUYS,WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THE WIIIIIIIND!
|
How many more times are we going to get asked this question?
They are both important.
|
Yes my point isn't about really asking if they are both important, but to try to suggest on what you guys think about high priority targeting in sc2. How it has effected the game overall and does it need to even be in the game?
|
Micro differentiates the top players more than the average players on bnet. You are a bit too unit AI focused when you think about micro in sc2. I don't think micro in sc2 is just about managing unit types in an army, but also multiple armies at once. Most high level plays involve multiple battles at the same time (i.e. harass with hellions while engaging the main army elsewhere, etc). I'm pretty sure players up to the level of even platinum do not require much micro to win games (me being one), but the top diamond ones probably will need to be balanced on both ends.
|
Your OP is messy and hard to read.
Macro and micro are both important. But of course both players being equal skill, the player with better macro/econ will usually win. This is the same as it was in BW. The player who can build more shit will generally win.
With MBS and automine, players are going to perfect their macro a lot more quickly than they did in BW. This means at the pro-level micro will be an even bigger determining factor of wins than it was in BW.
|
Macro is as important...as micro... but the moment to use micro is less used... but more important...
Like microing a Collosus out of range while keeping him shooting is a game changer.
Same with any SpellCaster
etc...
So Macro is really important overall but in some fights you can just micro and win over a lot more units if you micro the right unit right.
|
I think its different from race to race. Zerg is attack move with your army --> Spwan larva on all your hatcheries. Build units and rally point them.
Protoss I feel like is attack move, use speels. Micro collosus, blink whatever. Warp in some new units, and get back to the micro.
Terran is "siege up" --> macro a little --> Take a nap, and then kill your opp base...
|
I dont think many of the people on this post understand what the OP is about. Its saying that with the AI automatically targeting certain units the game isnt as difficult to micro as it should be. This is true, especially in the case of auto targeting dt's, which are supposed to be high risk high reward, but are now just high risk normal(as in not that big) reward.
|
On June 15 2010 06:08 jackofclubs81 wrote:
I dont think many of the people on this post understand what the OP is about. Its saying that with the AI automatically targeting certain units the game isnt as difficult to micro as it should be. This is true, especially in the case of auto targeting dt's, which are supposed to be high risk high reward, but are now just high risk normal(as in not that big) reward.
Yes, does seem to be a misunderstanding indeed. But I do not believe Blizzard is going to dumb down the auto-targeting of the game. Tanks seem to be the big issue, because in BW they would "carelessly" over-kill a unit while hitting units of their own. In SC2, this is not the case. To me, it seems we are looking it at all wrong, because we keep looking at it from the pov of the original SC. We just need to take it into a different approach to counter this new system.
Yes, it does suck to invest into dts, just to have them A-moved away (or should I say A-removed).
|
I don't think the high-priority targeting is detrimental to the micro mechanic. Since both sides get the feature I think it comes out a wash. There are still plenty of things that will keep you occupied with unit micro.
|
On June 15 2010 06:21 JohnUCrazy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 06:08 jackofclubs81 wrote:
I dont think many of the people on this post understand what the OP is about. Its saying that with the AI automatically targeting certain units the game isnt as difficult to micro as it should be. This is true, especially in the case of auto targeting dt's, which are supposed to be high risk high reward, but are now just high risk normal(as in not that big) reward. Yes, does seem to be a misunderstanding indeed. But I do not believe Blizzard is going to dumb down the auto-targeting of the game. Tanks seem to be the big issue, because in BW they would "carelessly" over-kill a unit while hitting units of their own. In SC2, this is not the case. To me, it seems we are looking it at all wrong, because we keep looking at it from the pov of the original SC. We just need to take it into a different approach to counter this new system. Yes, it does suck to invest into dts, just to have them A-moved away (or should I say A-removed).
I agree that this game will have a different approach; but I also believe with the current mechanics and being very different from sc1, we shouldn't have the same units from sc1. Yea, keep the core units we all love, but in reality the unit variations are slacking alot in the current beta. I think the only race with alot of viable options are the terran. Seems though that toss and zerg, right now in this beta stage, are "lacking" in variation whether it is our limited skill in the game and or units in general. It is only beta so who knows what other units and stuff is going to come out.
|
Both are extremely important, but since they made the mechanics of this game easier, more interesting strategies will pop up. In Starcraft Broodwar, only the extreme professionals could execute unique tactics. Other "good, but not pro" players basically had to play standard. The only interesting thing they could do would be to hide tech. Starcraft Brood War requires too much mechanical skill to focus on anything besides playing standard.
However, Starcraft 2 seems easier right now. No one is truly comfortable with it right now. The game isn't even released yet, and people are claiming it won't live up to SC:BW?! That is outrageous. Give Starcraft 2 some times and it will become an intensive micro game.
It seems like a macro game right now because that is all that people can focus on. The game has not been out long enough to know the exact timings on all of your macro mechanics perfectly. So people need to spend more time checking their macro because macro always comes before micro. As time passes, the good gamers will be completely comfortable with their macro, executing it perfectly. This will give them time to micro units and do insane things that we might not be able to think of.
In Starcraft:BW the thing that amazes people was that the pros could make their units move smoothly because the AI was terrible. Now with an improved AI, the units move smoothly already, and macroing up is so much easier with hot keys. If this game becomes an eSport, the pros will use all that extra mechanical potential into crazy strategies and maneuvers. Tri-base attacks, dual drops, microing a big battle while doing reaper harass, and stuff I wouldn't think of.
The only thing that is holding Starcraft 2 back is the newness of the game. The only thing that will hold back Starcraft 2 in the future is the imagination of the players themselves.
|
can a mod change the title? Not only is the post extremely messy but the title doesnt correlate to the topic at all. High vs no priority targeting or something along those lines.
and yes, I agree, first enemy in sight should be the only target until its dead and then the closest after that. If you want something important dead, that should be your job, not the computers.
|
I think the above post by "Whole" has it spot on. The newness of the game has everyone more focused on a macro oriented game. I think this is because alot of high level players have a good "general" idea of timings and game sense. Given more time build will become alot more refined and will be base more on exploiting holes in the opponents choice of build, leading to a more micro oriented game when playes have a "great" sense of the game and timings.
To go further on the OP's post, yes, at this point the advanced AI decisions have lead to a more macro oriented game. I really believe that given a year or two of gameplay, especially in such a highly played and researched game as starcraft players will find micro "exploits" that will give an advantage over players who are just simply macroing and 1a2a3a'ing (or in the case of SC2 "1a'ing" lol) and isn't that what competitive games are all about?
When the beta launched almost every game ended in just one big battle for the most part, and since then games have grown more and more micro intensive. I have high hopes that when the game releases and more games get played SC2 will get more and more refined.
|
Macro early on is more important.
Ah this is an interesting question though.
Their priorities will alway schange. W
When shuttle was doing really good, its not that his macro was phenomenal, in his interview he said he knew WHEN to macro. o-o
|
"The player should have to micro the units to attack the specific units. Not to take away auto attack but if you aren't good enough to micro and extremely good at macro the game does not punish it as much as it should be. "
You throw the word "should" around too much. The game "shouldn't" be anything unless you can justify it.
Besides, the new AI can be as much a disadvantage as before. Throw 1 or 2 Mutalisks into a pack of Corruptors facing Collosi and Stalkers and which unit do the Stalkers target? Losing a Mutalisk is cheaper than losing a Corruptor, not to mention the Corruptors are the unit that will cause the most devastation.
|
Right now everyone is so busy coming up with new builds, mastering the new basics, learning the ins and outs of the maps, learning scouting timings, and even using all of the units in a game, that I just don't see this as a bad design in the game. I think that good micro is possible, just people don't currently use it. If the other person isn't, than why would you. The general public so far doesn't play a heavy micro game, it's just macro and build.
|
brood war was about macro, starcraft 2 is just continuing that
micro and strategy are how you differentiate yourself from someone with identical macro, but good macro is what makes you a good player
i mean, you can have better brood war muta micro than jaedong but if your mutas are late or you can't build drones at the same time you're controlling them, you're still going to lose to a terran who is executing properly. he'll eventually get his turrets up and push out and your measly two lurkers and six zerglings are just going to curl up and die, regardless of how many SCVs you killed or medics you picked off. if he's making units and you aren't, you can't overcome that.
starcraft 2 is exactly the same, but because we don't have highly standardized midgame compositions yet, it's hard to see the impact of it. there is no canonical build like two hatch muta where you can look at two players with the exact same build that's been played thousands of times and see one of them dominate with it because they can kill more marines with a muta stack and thus squeeze out a faster defiler mound. no one's figured out the ideal number of mutas you need to harass a bio terran off of two bases, there just hasn't been enough time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
