|
On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: Show nested quote +People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap.
i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself.
|
On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself.
People arent sweeping it underthe rug just because they dont want it to be true, personally i think your worries have solid basis but you are still making them too big of a deal at the current timeline of the game. I know that you hate this comment, but starcraft 2 hasnt been around long and there is *2* expansions coming out still! There is no reason to freak out... yet.
|
I don't think this discussion can be continued relevantly in one thread, i honestly think there are too many individual areas where we could try to improve this game we all love, and as such i think in order for any discussion to be successful i believe this subject requires more specificity to unique game design aspects.
That being said, if you are analyzing positioning dynamics, i don't think anything can be more telling than Marine vs Mutalisk in TvZ BW.
The micro element required by both players in that situation can determine the game flow for minutes afterwards, i don't believe enough similar situations at the moment exist in SC2.
It's my opinion that there should be a multitude of units that are honestly overpowered unless you micro against them properly.
It is also my opinion that the only truly threatening unit without decent micro against it at this phase in our understanding of SC2, is the Baneling, and the primary reason the Baneling is effective (in my opinion) is because of the poor pathing AI matchup against it as a unit.
I think if my opinions are accurate, then the conclusions we could draw from them would be that it adds a dynamic, (possibly a dynamic you don't like possibly one you do, but a dynamic nonetheless) to have pathing be considered as a major balancing influence, and to create units to abuse that influence.
Just my take on it, abuse my logic how you wish.
|
On April 18 2011 06:30 Marradron wrote:
Im getting sick of the blob vs blob that sc2 can sometimes turn into. The balls are too powerfull and too easy to control. We need masively destructive AOE or something to force people to spread more.
The control group limitation + bad pathing really made what in the end I loved about sc2. But I can't see it ever implemented in SC2. Its just annoying to play. but amazing to watch.
Regarding blob vs blob, what I can understand from watching both bw and sc2;
The control groups being limited to 12, allows only small parts of big armies to engage for the most of time.
Add to this the units not being able to move in every single direction, units don't clump up. Because of this, the firepower of an army cannot be concentrated at the front lines fhe enemy army as quickly and as efficiently as it can be in SC2. Therefore, fights last longer, giving the player more time to decide about either committing, retreating, microing to gain advantage, or multitasking.
So, what can we take from this:
In SC2, if your enemy has higher firepower, and you cannot answer to that (in numbers, more firepower, special abilities, micro or tech) losing your army is very very easy due to the mechanics above. I'm not talking about losing a part of your army like in SC1, but ALL OF IT. Since the firepower can be concentrated very efficiently, if your opponent demolished you, it's likely he'll have enough to roll you over by the time he gets to your base because he won't lose too much units. This is best observed in ZvP. It is very easy for Zerg player to die if he cannot take out considerable number of Protoss army to discourage him from attacking/ or making defending easier, because Zerg simply cannot reinforce fast enough to combat that army.
In SC1, because firepower comes in smaller packets, you can always either retreat, or defend with minimal units because your opponent's firepower won't kill anything in secnds.
|
On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself.
There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument.
|
On April 18 2011 07:31 Humppis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. People arent sweeping it underthe rug just because they dont want it to be true, personally i think your worries have solid basis but you are still making them too big of a deal at the current timeline of the game. I know that you hate this comment, but starcraft 2 hasnt been around long and there is *2* expansions coming out still! There is no reason to freak out... yet.
So we really have to wait 2 expansions for the top players to stop doing all-in type play styles over and over again so we can see more refined micro/macro style play? Tug-O-War>faceroll
User was warned for this post
|
On April 18 2011 07:50 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument.
For example, late game PvT battles are going to involve ghost vs templar micro, splitting units in general vs EMP, vikings vs colossus vs stalker micro, small groups of marauders aiming to target colossi, various flanks, and so on. Just because they only involve maybe 1 or 2 of these currently, because players aren't very good (I mean, you watch someone as good as white-ra get 6 HT emp'd at a time over and over vs bomber in a showmatch), doesn't mean top players in 10 years won't be doing these all simultaneously.
if this is your definition of uprooting the premise of my OP i think you need to read my OP again.
|
On April 18 2011 07:58 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:50 PJA wrote:On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument. Show nested quote +For example, late game PvT battles are going to involve ghost vs templar micro, splitting units in general vs EMP, vikings vs colossus vs stalker micro, small groups of marauders aiming to target colossi, various flanks, and so on. Just because they only involve maybe 1 or 2 of these currently, because players aren't very good (I mean, you watch someone as good as white-ra get 6 HT emp'd at a time over and over vs bomber in a showmatch), doesn't mean top players in 10 years won't be doing these all simultaneously. if this is your definition of uprooting the premise of my OP i think you need to read my OP again.
I think this is a good reason to add the summary I suggested you add. That way people can stop misunderstanding your OP page after page after page like I did up until a 10 or so minutes ago.
|
I have been saying from the start that they killed a large spectator portion of SC by simply removing the 3 most interesting units from the game IMO.
Lurker
Vulture
Reaver
I mean how many times have you held your breath to see if a scarab was going to go off and kill like 20 workers or if it was going to be a dud?
Same thing with spider mines. The atmosphere would get so tense to see if a group or units was going to walk over a minefield without knowing it.
And lurkers were pure awesome not to mention the fact that they could be "stopped."
|
On April 18 2011 08:04 Footler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:58 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:50 PJA wrote:On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument. For example, late game PvT battles are going to involve ghost vs templar micro, splitting units in general vs EMP, vikings vs colossus vs stalker micro, small groups of marauders aiming to target colossi, various flanks, and so on. Just because they only involve maybe 1 or 2 of these currently, because players aren't very good (I mean, you watch someone as good as white-ra get 6 HT emp'd at a time over and over vs bomber in a showmatch), doesn't mean top players in 10 years won't be doing these all simultaneously. if this is your definition of uprooting the premise of my OP i think you need to read my OP again. I think this is a good reason to add the summary I suggested you add. That way people can stop misunderstanding your OP page after page after page like I did up until a 10 or so minutes ago.
i honestly don't know how to summarize my OP. i've tried to make it as overwhelmingly clear and at the same time as concise as possible. admittedly, i covered a lot of crap so maybe that's why it's not as clear as it could be, but i think if people spend the time to read and try to understand what i'm saying, rather than take my examples at face value, this thread would better off.
the intermission pictures and videos don't really help clarity either but people generally shy away from huge walls of text.
|
On April 18 2011 08:09 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:04 Footler wrote:On April 18 2011 07:58 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:50 PJA wrote:On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument. For example, late game PvT battles are going to involve ghost vs templar micro, splitting units in general vs EMP, vikings vs colossus vs stalker micro, small groups of marauders aiming to target colossi, various flanks, and so on. Just because they only involve maybe 1 or 2 of these currently, because players aren't very good (I mean, you watch someone as good as white-ra get 6 HT emp'd at a time over and over vs bomber in a showmatch), doesn't mean top players in 10 years won't be doing these all simultaneously. if this is your definition of uprooting the premise of my OP i think you need to read my OP again. I think this is a good reason to add the summary I suggested you add. That way people can stop misunderstanding your OP page after page after page like I did up until a 10 or so minutes ago. i honestly don't know how to summarize my OP. i've tried to make it as overwhelmingly clear and at the same time as concise as possible. admittedly, i covered a lot of crap so maybe that's why it's not as clear as it could be, but i think if people spend the time to read and try to understand what i'm saying rather than take my examples at face value, this thread would better off.
It's just impossible to summarize the full essence and what you are trying to say in your OP. You have to have played Broodwar in order to appreciate this post and what you are trying to say.
People that are new to SC and have no or little experience with BW are never going to understand the concepts you outlined.
|
On April 18 2011 06:14 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 05:35 Ribbon wrote:
Zerg have the spine/spore crawler, which works exactly like you want (long setup time, can create fortified positions, great at defending expos, especially with a queen that has energy). Now, you can say that the Spine Crawler doesn't serve this role well enough, in which case maybe a buff should be considered. Spine/spore crawlers are not map control units. They are early game defense units. They have range 7 so they get out-ranged by colossus and siege tanks by the mid game, and because they are armored they also get dominated by marauders and immortals and void rays. They can also only be placed on creep, but because they are only useful early game anyway so that isn't even a big factor.
Then they need a buff. It's not a "fundamental flaw". It's a very precise point I'm making here: The zerg already has a unit that works like Mahnini wants in theory. If it doesn't work that way in practice, some numbers need to be adjusted.
On April 18 2011 08:09 Essentia wrote:
I mean how many times have you held your breath to see if a scarab was going to go off and kill like 20 workers or if it was going to be a dud?
There wasn't any skill making the difference, there, it was buggy AI. When Blue Flame Hellions get into a mineral line, micro decides what damage is taken, not the RNG
|
On April 18 2011 08:10 Essentia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:09 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 08:04 Footler wrote:On April 18 2011 07:58 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:50 PJA wrote:On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument. For example, late game PvT battles are going to involve ghost vs templar micro, splitting units in general vs EMP, vikings vs colossus vs stalker micro, small groups of marauders aiming to target colossi, various flanks, and so on. Just because they only involve maybe 1 or 2 of these currently, because players aren't very good (I mean, you watch someone as good as white-ra get 6 HT emp'd at a time over and over vs bomber in a showmatch), doesn't mean top players in 10 years won't be doing these all simultaneously. if this is your definition of uprooting the premise of my OP i think you need to read my OP again. I think this is a good reason to add the summary I suggested you add. That way people can stop misunderstanding your OP page after page after page like I did up until a 10 or so minutes ago. i honestly don't know how to summarize my OP. i've tried to make it as overwhelmingly clear and at the same time as concise as possible. admittedly, i covered a lot of crap so maybe that's why it's not as clear as it could be, but i think if people spend the time to read and try to understand what i'm saying rather than take my examples at face value, this thread would better off. It's just impossible to summarize the full essence and what you are trying to say in your OP. You have to have played Broodwar in order to appreciate this post and what you are trying to say. People that are new to SC and have no or little experience with BW are never going to understand the concepts you outlined.
Thing is, I was a very experienced BW player. I was around for the WGT, PGT, the dawn of iCCup, etc and I still didn't get his point until thoroughly making an ass of myself, the point of the OP unfortunately is not clear enough. It might be difficult to summarize but give it a shot. Maybe come up with a new unit that demonstrates a certain point.
|
Seems as plently of people as well are not quite open minded about this issue/post as well. Rather then just taking in what the OP says and what it's explaining and trying to see it for what it is. They rather just lock down on their argument or just argue for the sake of arguing rather then seeing that it's no bw vs sc2, rather then what could make sc2 greater and take lesson from what BW had that made it an almost perfect game. (if not perfect)
Great post still, hope people can take the 4 minutes out of their day to watch the vods and read trough it rather then read a couple of lines and then dismiss it and judge it by their own merits/veiws.
|
It ultimately boils down to something you mention in the OP but that can be expanded to apply to nearly the entire game as a whole:
Defender's advantage.
SC2 is a game where defender's advantage has been largely removed. As such, unit count is the only major determinant in most fights (other than unit composition). This also means that repelling a push after a successful attack is nearly impossible, and renders a large amount of harass/skirmish play completely pointless.
|
Map control, in the sense the OP is talking about, is provided by units that have the ability to, in smaller numbers, pay for themselves many times over before they are killed. Examples of this from BW are vultures, lurkers, defilers, siege tanks, and there are probably a few more. These types of units, with the potential to do enough damage to pay for themselves many times over, are not as potent in SC2 as they were in BW.
|
On April 18 2011 08:25 Footler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:10 Essentia wrote:On April 18 2011 08:09 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 08:04 Footler wrote:On April 18 2011 07:58 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:50 PJA wrote:On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. There's really nothing to acknowledge or anything left to sweep under the rug when we've already uprooted the entire premise of your argument. For example, late game PvT battles are going to involve ghost vs templar micro, splitting units in general vs EMP, vikings vs colossus vs stalker micro, small groups of marauders aiming to target colossi, various flanks, and so on. Just because they only involve maybe 1 or 2 of these currently, because players aren't very good (I mean, you watch someone as good as white-ra get 6 HT emp'd at a time over and over vs bomber in a showmatch), doesn't mean top players in 10 years won't be doing these all simultaneously. if this is your definition of uprooting the premise of my OP i think you need to read my OP again. I think this is a good reason to add the summary I suggested you add. That way people can stop misunderstanding your OP page after page after page like I did up until a 10 or so minutes ago. i honestly don't know how to summarize my OP. i've tried to make it as overwhelmingly clear and at the same time as concise as possible. admittedly, i covered a lot of crap so maybe that's why it's not as clear as it could be, but i think if people spend the time to read and try to understand what i'm saying rather than take my examples at face value, this thread would better off. It's just impossible to summarize the full essence and what you are trying to say in your OP. You have to have played Broodwar in order to appreciate this post and what you are trying to say. People that are new to SC and have no or little experience with BW are never going to understand the concepts you outlined. Thing is, I was a very experienced BW player. I was around for the WGT, PGT, the dawn of iCCup, etc and I still didn't get his point until thoroughly making an ass of myself, the point of the OP unfortunately is not clear enough. It might be difficult to summarize but give it a shot. Maybe come up with a new unit that demonstrates a certain point.
Yea, honestly there's too much to say to sum it all up.
The closest thing would be that a certain level of depth that was in Brood War is missing from Sc2.
I'm not saying Sc2 is an inferior game in any way, it's still VERY young and honestly the meta game is shaping up where micro is becoming much more important, all surface area aside.
Watching a fight in Brood War does not compare to Starcraft 2, this is one of they key points from the OP.
|
On April 18 2011 08:09 Essentia wrote:
I have been saying from the start that they killed a large spectator portion of SC by simply removing the 3 most interesting units from the game IMO.
Lurker
Vulture
Reaver
I mean how many times have you held your breath to see if a scarab was going to go off and kill like 20 workers or if it was going to be a dud?
Same thing with spider mines. The atmosphere would get so tense to see if a group or units was going to walk over a minefield without knowing it.
And lurkers were pure awesome not to mention the fact that they could be "stopped."
Lurkers didn't come until the expansion. Reavers in shuttle were not anticipated by Blizzard at all when they were released, hence their nerf.
All I'm saying is that we need to give it more time.
|
On April 18 2011 07:31 Humppis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:25 mahnini wrote:On April 18 2011 07:20 Barrin wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I feel you underestimate the importance/value of this sentiment: People would be quick to point out that it's a new game, that it needs time to mature, and they'd be correct But I do understand the differences and I would never want to stop efforts to bridge the gap. i'm not underestimating this at all. it's just a lot of people seem content with sweeping my entire OP under the rug with one statement rather than acknowledging the content of post itself. People arent sweeping it underthe rug just because they dont want it to be true, personally i think your worries have solid basis but you are still making them too big of a deal at the current timeline of the game. I know that you hate this comment, but starcraft 2 hasnt been around long and there is *2* expansions coming out still! There is no reason to freplayerak out... yet.
This is pretty accurate if you consider that Blizzard is aware of the problem (maybe situation is a better word than problem) and actively introduce new mechanics to improve unit relations in the game. However, if they aren't aware of what OUR concerns are, as customers, then they might not even address them.
As it is, things just die too fast, blobs are too strong, and like the OP said, there really isn't much to do in the 5 or so seconds that a battle will occur for a player's skill to really show and shine. The skill ceiling and entry skill are both too low for large battles.
My biggest gripes with the game are in line with the OP's analysis. A lot of the unit matchups are so one dimensional and shallow it hurts the game. It sucks comparing things to brood war, but that's really the only game that has done it right. Marines vs lurkers; dragoon vs vulture; muta vs corsair; etc... all were dynamic in that the person behind the screen can directly influence how each outcome turns out. In SC2, this is hardly the case. After initial positioning (setting up flanks & concaving) there is very little left for the player to do except watch the battle play out. It gets even worse after you get out of unit vs unit and into ball vs ball. DPS is too concentrated, shit dies too fast, and there's no real way to micro your stuff before 100's of supply worth of units are dead.
Another huge issue is the pacing of the games. I don't know how to explain that very eloquently, but I can describe it with examples:
PvZ, you don't have a robotics bay and went citadel tech (speedlots). The zerg has lurker/lings. You can delay his push enough by microing properly so that you can throw up some emergency cannons / get an observer. This isn't possible in SC2 and still remain on even footing.
ZvT, zerg can lurker hop and force a terran to back up with lurkers/darkswarm/lings without 1) commiting 2) losing a horrendous amount of units that its an auto lose.
PvT: probably the best example in the department of pacing. Terran has a multitude of options available (spider mines, building walls, harass w/ drops, well positioned tanks) that can delay a protoss push. When engagements do occur, each player has enough reaction time to continue with push or reposition and not be horribly behind. This positional tug of war exists throughout the matchup, but even when someone wins a contested area its not over because its often difficult to do a head on push.
Spells were dynamic and forced a response from the opponent or get into hairy situations (darkswarm, plague, ensnare, stasis, psi-storm, spider mines). The spells weren't great in of themselves (well, maybe psi-storm was), but how each player utilized and reacted to each spell.
In SC2, you see very minimal amounts of this dynamic. Fungal growth, forcefieds, concussive shells all prevent this type of situation from occurring to different extents. There really isn't much you can do once a spell is cast in SC2 (there is only a preventive response). You just watch the spell run its course if it is cast.
Fungal growth has a preventive element to it, but absolutely no responsive element to the spell. This forces the opponent to either abandon a portion of his force, or stay and fight to defend the wounded units. This is such a bad design element that fungal growth is so painful to see just because there is so little you can do as a response. They even took out blinking out of fungal for some reason. It let the protoss player save some of his shit that is dying rather than just watching his units die a slow death. Apparently thats a bad thing.
The same problem exists with forcefields & guardian shield. Once they are on the field, theres not much you can do about it. Again, forcefields have a preventive response and not a responsive one. Either you stay and fight or you retreat and chalk the units FF'd as a loss. There are some ways to mitigate it (burrow movement, medivac-lifts) but a lot of those situations are very rare.
Probably the most glaring issue is with concussive shell. The auto-cast ability that actually discourages micro. It doesn't even have a preventive element to it. It just is. If you're retreating from a lost battle, you lose even more shit so that your retreat is less meaningful.
I think these are huge design faults in the game do not require extensive reworking to have the same longevity as brood war. They need to re-think the existing spells, tweak them a little, make things not die so fast so that battles are more drawn out, and introduce new unit dynamics with the expansion packs.
Simple changes like making FF targetable, fungal doing damage + slowing units, and concussive shells only working on bioloical units can go a long way. Also, think about how much more you can do per battle if all the units had 75% the DPS they currently do. The skill ceiling would increase, battles could be managed, and blob v blob wouldn't be so chaotic.
TL:DR SC2's pacing needs a closer inspection, spells need to have a responsive element to them and not just a preventive element. Units die too fast, unit vs unit dynamics are shallow & one dimensional, and blob vs blob dynamics are even worse. Tweaking spells, unit stats, and introducing new units / abilities that make player interaction with units more rewarding & decisive for the usefulness of the unit are required if SC2 is going to have the longevity of its predecessor.
|
On April 18 2011 08:31 mike1290 wrote:
Map control, in the sense the OP is talking about, is provided by units that have the ability to, in smaller numbers, pay for themselves many times over before they are killed. Examples of this from BW are vultures, lurkers, defilers, siege tanks, and there are probably a few more. These types of units, with the potential to do enough damage to pay for themselves many times over, are not as potent in SC2 as they were in BW.
i think this is a good way to put it. i had a hard time explaining it so i called it literal map control but this is what i mean. units that when are setup you wouldn't attack into without strong reason because you would suffer massive damage, but the downside of such units is that when they are not setup they aren't anywhere near as effective. this makes it absolutely essential to not be caught out of position and let your opponent setup, which is vastly different than positioning to avoid unfavorable terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
