| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
There are cool things people can do in this game. That's how you can "use units in interesting ways," Morrow used roach/hydra in all three games and used them in completely different ways. Also: Keeping units on one hotkey does not mean he is not controlling individual units. And I think most people would consider that bad anyway. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
| ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1603 Posts
Maps - They're shit compared to BW maps. Even the GSL maps are shit imo Players - The metagame is not evolved enough to compare to what happened in BW. On a time line not one of the games in your OP took place relative to the time that SC2 has been out. The players themselves don't control their army just 1 control group and last second micro. Spells - They're weak and poorly designed. They also tend to negate micro by either not doing damage, so you don't even worry about them or they force unit positioning by freezing them or preventing movement. Units - They don't just plain do damage. In BW micro was more effective because units just killed other units. There wasn't X does massive damage to Y, but not Z. It was if it can attack it can do damage maybe not the perfect unit choice, but it could still work. Map Control - I personally don't think it is lost, just not used like it was in BW this also could be a bit of design flaw with maps. In the end I feel like Blizzard as well as players have a long way to go. Players will need to evolve their strategies to the level of late broodwar strategies. Blizzard is going to have to add 5 units per race, and revamp the whole spell/talent system as well as the characteristics of units. Nothing is extremely IMBA now, but the OP is right I don't think there can be "magic" in this game at it's current state. On April 17 2011 07:13 TedJustice wrote: Aren't the baneling and colossus similar to the siege tank in how they can give you map control? In BW zerg's map control was the defiler in ZvT and just normal units in ZvP. In BW toss map control was storm, and basic units. These units don't compare. You can actually just keep pushing against banelings. They can destroy a tight army, but they don't threaten the push like storm and gateway units used to. You can use colossi to engage in a battle and it does help in map control, but facing zealots + storm in BW was totally different. They could eliminate a whole terran army if it became too greedy whereas in SC2 the battle will most likely still go decent for the terran. | ||
|
aurum510
United States229 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:09 Qikz wrote: Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players? I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one. It's a fault of the game for allowing 1A armies to be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. Why make multiple control groups of units when you can simply put them all in 1 and attack? If you 1A in BW, you get rolled by the tier 2 AOE units like spider mines, reavers, and lurkers. SC2 just doesn't have units like that besides the siege tank. And surprise surprise, terran are the race everyone considers easymode, because they can just 1A while the others can't if siege tanks are out. The other races need similar units/mechanics. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
TheGrimace
United States929 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:20 aurum510 wrote: It's a fault of the game for allowing 1A armies to be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. Why make multiple control groups of units when you can simply put them all in 1 and attack? If you 1A in BW, you get rolled by the tier 2 AOE units like spider mines, reavers, and lurkers. SC2 just doesn't have units like that besides the siege tank. And surprise surprise, terran are the race everyone considers easymode, because they can just 1A while the others can't if siege tanks are out. The other races need similar units/mechanics. I saw zealots and immortals getting stuck behind stalkers in that game. "Just as efficient" doesn't apply to 1a. Sure, he won playing that way, but that doesn't mean it's optimal. He also pulled his entire army back to his main to kill an overlord. That's really bad play, and could have cost him an expansion if Morrow had made an attack. It's bad play, no matter how you look at it. This goes back to our current professional players not being as good as they could or should be. | ||
|
dubRa
2165 Posts
I can look back at sc2 beta and laugh at the "high level" games. The game is progressing. This what really matters. Not what bw units are missing. | ||
|
Pax
United States175 Posts
On April 16 2011 09:48 lazydino wrote: I guess sc2 is just more noob-friendly. I also think you forgot to mention multibuilding selection. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against MBS. Did it make the game harder? Yes. Did it do so in a way that required particular skill/made the game more exciting to watch? No. The same thing goes for auto-mining. I have nothing against making the game harder, but SBS and manual mining add an unnecessary difficulty. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32282 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:09 Qikz wrote: Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players? I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one. Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:20 aurum510 wrote: It's a fault of the game for allowing 1A armies to be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. Why make multiple control groups of units when you can simply put them all in 1 and attack? If you 1A in BW, you get rolled by the tier 2 AOE units like spider mines, reavers, and lurkers. SC2 just doesn't have units like that besides the siege tank. And surprise surprise, terran are the race everyone considers easymode, because they can just 1A while the others can't if siege tanks are out. The other races need similar units/mechanics. And watch all those 1A terrans get crushed by infestors, banelings, colossi, and storm. I have never seen 1a armies be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. I have no idea what you're talking about. How about Thors vs Muta? That certainly punishes poorly controlled mutas. Also, as I said before, the control groups does not mean he is 1Aing. He could be controlling units individually without control groups. It's not like that's completely unheard of. | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1603 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:28 Pax wrote: I have yet to hear a compelling argument against MBS. Did it make the game harder? Yes. Did it do so in a way that required particular skill/made the game more exciting to watch? No. The same thing goes for auto-mining. I have nothing against making the game harder, but SBS and manual mining add an unnecessary difficulty. Very good point. An esport must be entertaining. Sending units to mine and watching someone select a gateway to make a dragoon over and over isn't entertaining either. People like to see micro, battles, harass, and spell use. | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:13 TedJustice wrote: Aren't the baneling and colossus similar to the siege tank in how they can give you map control? I don't think a suicide unit really gives map control. All you have to do is send in a few cheap units one at a time, or siege/force field. Colossus don't give map control without support either. In BW units could single handedly give map control (thinking of vultures). | ||
|
Falcor
Canada894 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:34 NoobSkills wrote: Very good point. An esport must be entertaining. Sending units to mine and watching someone select a gateway to make a dragoon over and over isn't entertaining either. People like to see micro, battles, harass, and spell use. Have you ever watched a bw match? They few ive seen they dont show that...hell i think we see more exciting creep spread in sc2 matches then you ever saw macro happening in bw. The only time you saw macro was when they swapped to the player cam for 10 seconds. The rest of the time was spent watching flying from battle to battle happening across the map. But you knew in the back of your mind that holy shit hes controlling all these units while macroing, it just added another layer. where as a zvt watching i know the zerg went 1a for lings. right click for banes behind the army. right click for mutas and then hold position. and then hold down z/t to refill to max while the battle happens. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5872 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:28 Pax wrote: I have yet to hear a compelling argument against MBS. Did it make the game harder? Yes. Did it do so in a way that required particular skill/made the game more exciting to watch? No. The same thing goes for auto-mining. I have nothing against making the game harder, but SBS and manual mining add an unnecessary difficulty. SBS and manual-mining combined mean that macroing from 4-5 bases is much harder than macroing from just 1-2 bases. It means that to be a macro-oriented player you not only have to have your macro up to par, but also be an excellent multi-tasker. On the other hand, micro-oriented player are good at taking advantage of smaller details within the game with harassment and controlling the battles better. It creates a unique dynamic, where players can take advantage of whatever their strength is, and go for a management style or micro/harassment based style. What's more, the way macro works in BW (the more bases you take, the harder it is to manage everything) allows for some great comebacks if one of the players is at an economic disadvantage - e.g. 2 bases vs. 5 - because his opponent is essentially at a multi-tasking deficit. You can throw him out of his rhythm by harassing him constantly. Imo such hard fought comebacks are amazing both for player and spectators. They're pretty much nonexistent in sc2. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12057 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:31 IntoTheWow wrote: Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It's early in the game and although they are at "pro level". Are they playing perfectly every single game? No, I've not seen one game of Starcraft 2 where a player has played at the sort of perfection level of standards of the likes of Flash and Jaedong. The game is still being figured out and the metagame is still shifting every single day. There's been new builds in every season of the GSL so far and the game is constantly changing. I've seen tournament players make plenty of mistakes which is bound to happen at this time in the games life. As this all changes, so will the playstyle and most likely quite a lot of the "pro" players we have now might not even be around this time next year. I would quite happily say that just because the likes of Morrow and Idra were non-korean pros in Broodwar does not mean that they're the sort of players that are excelling at Starcraft 2 right now (and we should not be using them as some kind of benchmark of play for Starcraft 2), they're just the people who are actively in tournaments right now, but that can change very drastically. Until the game develops, threads like this are in my personal opinion very silly discussions as quite simply the outcome will always be the same. Brood War players will say that Broodwar is better and newer players and people who didn't maybe get the time with Broodwar as much will say the opposite. As a broodwar player myself I personally feel we should be giving the time for the game to develop. Was it going to be perfect when it was first released? No. Starcraft wasn't even a good game until Broodwar and became a progame by complete accident. | ||
|
Doso
Germany769 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5872 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:58 Doso wrote: 9 Years of balancing and hardcore training. Starcraft was kinda bad before the first expansion and the patches that came along with it. Just give it time. Seriously, this is starting to get extremely annoying. What 9 years of patching are you talking about? T___T | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:58 Doso wrote: 9 Years of balancing and hardcore training. Starcraft was kinda bad before the first expansion and the patches that came along with it. Just give it time. Do you even know that Sc2 has already got more balance patches than Sc + bw ? | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On April 17 2011 08:01 Boblion wrote: Do you even know that Sc2 has already got more balance patches than Sc + bw ? Even still the patches probably do less balancing work than just people coming up with new styles and the responses to follow. Those have always been more influential than patches imo. | ||
|
zul
Germany5427 Posts
On April 17 2011 07:13 TedJustice wrote: Aren't the baneling and colossus similar to the siege tank in how they can give you map control? Colossi, especially in combination with sentrys (for forcefields) are very good at defending an area, Banelings are different, because they aren`t ranged and it takes time until they reach their target. during that time they can be dodged and killed. All in all I totally feel the OP and hope Blizzard reads this. Excellent Post sir. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Stellar Fest
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nJxLO.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bp21o.png)
