This one. Flash plants spider mines everywhere (125 splash damage, also called "mini nukes"). Bisu defuses almost every single one and prevents his army getting demolished, eventually taking the game. Flash's push would have demolished any other player but Bisu is something different.
Then, in another game (can't find VOD), JD went 9 pool, and Flash 14cc (is exactly what it sounds like). 9pool completely demolishes 14cc. And still, Flash won.
oh, and the most epic of em all: the 32 kill dragoon.
positioning, flanks, multi-pronged attacks, timing, the surprise factor
This is very underdeveloped aspect of the game right now. Even pro players have SHIT army positioning and movement, COMPARED TO what can be possibly achieved in the game. Those discussions are pretty pointless on open forum tho.
On January 01 2012 09:13 AndAgain wrote: Can someone link VODS of BW games where a significantly weaker army won the battle thorough sheer micro? I'd be very interested in seeing that. (Honest request.)
This game comes to mind, depending on how you define "weaker":
Even if SC2 is in it's infancy, it definitely is easier. The best way I can relate this is for LoL and Dota (Although these games are no where near SC/SC2). Complexity comes from more points for failure, more places where one player can outplay the other player. There is just less room for failure in SC2, plain and simple.
Don't get me wrong, SC2 is plenty difficult to play at the highest level for 95 % of people. But Brood War is that difficult for 99%. Arguing over this triviality is how we view the difference between a great game and a good one.
With that said, SC2 could find something to gain in making effects more punishing. More punishment = more close calls = more entertaining, of course, only if people don't get wrecked instantly : P Game design is tough for sure.
There's a different reason why pros supposedly don't get much more out of their units than mediocre players compared to BW. It's because the mediocre players are simply know more than what used to be known. They got better.
Players know why Mutalisks are good, because with their speed and mobility, they can backstab into favorable situations and disengage from unfavorable ones. Players didn't know that in the beginnings of Starcraft vanilla though. But at the start of SC2, they did. Transferring workers was not always around in BW, and when Maynard first started using this technique, many people questioned it. Now everyone takes for granted that you should always transfer probes. Nowadays, even mediocre players understand the concept of a concave and why it is good. Even the most noobie scrub understands that proper Macro is one of the most important aspects of the game. As the player base gets inherently better, so the gap between what the pro and the mediocre can accomplish shrinks.
That being said, I think there is still a ton still left to learn about SC2. SC2 can be very unforgiving. One of the aspects of my game I've been working on to get more out of my units lately is my army movement, which isn't battle micro. Choosing which lane to press forward through can be extremely important given the terrain. Even if I just want to take the xel'naga with my army, how I actually move my army to get there can be important, moving along a lane that allows me to threaten an attack, before pulling back to the positioning by the tower that I want to hold, while having good defensive retreat paths to not leave me too vulnerable to counters. Many maps have multiple paths and be quite complex in how you might wish to use them.
I like Day9's thinking on this, and I wonder if there is a good way to quantify the ratio he is referring to. For example, battles between a player who does no micro (e.g., a computer that 1a's) and a pro. How many fewer units can the pro use and still win? For example, if a computer 1a's 15 roaches, what is the minimum number of roaches a pro needs to reliably win? You could try all kinds of unit match-ups to see how they compare.
On January 01 2012 09:37 whatthefat wrote: I like Day9's thinking on this, and I wonder if there is a good way to quantify the ratio he is referring to. For example, battles between a player who does no micro (e.g., a computer that 1a's) and a pro. How many fewer units can the pro use and still win? For example, if a computer 1a's 15 roaches, what is the minimum number of roaches a pro needs to reliably win? You could try all kinds of unit match-ups to see how they compare.
I'm sorry, but I feel like I must stop you there, roaches are one of the most A-movable units of the game. Even pros only A-move with them, at best stutter step. We've yet to see individual burrow micro though, but no one does it as of now...except computer scripts, ironically.
On January 01 2012 09:37 whatthefat wrote: I like Day9's thinking on this, and I wonder if there is a good way to quantify the ratio he is referring to. For example, battles between a player who does no micro (e.g., a computer that 1a's) and a pro. How many fewer units can the pro use and still win? For example, if a computer 1a's 15 roaches, what is the minimum number of roaches a pro needs to reliably win? You could try all kinds of unit match-ups to see how they compare.
I'm sorry, but I feel like I must stop you there, roaches are one of the most A-movable units of the game. Even pros only A-move with them, at best stutter step. We've yet to see individual burrow micro though, but no one does it as of now...except computer scripts, ironically.
That was actually my point in choosing the roach - I suspect the number is not far below 15 (even with burrow micro). Now, that could potentially be due to pros not yet using units in SC2 to their full potential, or it could be a game design flaw. One way to determine that would be to compare dumb AI (1a) vs. pro to pro vs. clever AI (optimized micro).
On January 01 2012 09:37 whatthefat wrote: I like Day9's thinking on this, and I wonder if there is a good way to quantify the ratio he is referring to. For example, battles between a player who does no micro (e.g., a computer that 1a's) and a pro. How many fewer units can the pro use and still win? For example, if a computer 1a's 15 roaches, what is the minimum number of roaches a pro needs to reliably win? You could try all kinds of unit match-ups to see how they compare.
I'm sorry, but I feel like I must stop you there, roaches are one of the most A-movable units of the game. Even pros only A-move with them, at best stutter step. We've yet to see individual burrow micro though, but no one does it as of now...except computer scripts, ironically.
That was actually my point in choosing the roach - I suspect the number is not far below 15 (even with burrow micro). Now, that could potentially be due to pros not yet using units in SC2 to their full potential, or it could be a game design flaw. One way to determine that would be to compare dumb AI (1a) vs. pro to pro vs. clever AI (optimized micro).
I think burrow has a "cast time" which is why its not done a bit more. Zergs are usually lazy with micro (compared to T kiting, splitting etc and protoss ff's plus 2-4 control groups and focus firing or storming, i notice Z tends to just attack move and then go inject stuff in half of their battles) so it would probably be best to use something marine-marauder focused, maybe just marines, with or without medivacs (would help pros more) just to measure that. I think with perfect control terran can scale far better than Z and still notably better than P in a micro situation.
Protoss isnt really measurable though because of the forcefield mechanic i think - If you include sentries in an army and amove you will get so little from them compared to even throwing up gshield and a few ffs, sentry+bstalker vs pure roach or something is pretty insane how cost effective you can get with good control
On January 01 2012 06:52 Xlancer wrote: I know I get way more out of my roaches than the average play just from doing burrow micro on hurt roaches. Usually it causes a rage quit from the other player
EDIT: Also I wouldn't say that sc2 has a lower skill ceiling just because the sc2 UI makes it easier to perform the same actions that only pros could do in sc1. At the very least the ceiling would be equal because pros can still do those same actions in sc2, but I would say that sc2 has a much higher potential ceiling because of how much higher the sc2 UI raised baseline skill level.
I don't think you understand the term "skill ceiling". What SC2 raised is skill floor (what you said), which has a priori nothing to do with skill ceiling.
what I'm saying is that with a higher floor on which to stand, that it should be possible to push the ceiling even higher. Just look at the insane things that Automaton 2000 micro is capable of. So with less time needed to macro, more time can be spent learning how to do insane micro.
The automaton bot should clearly show the ridiculous feats of micro that are possible. Obviously, none of them are even feasible. But you can do them on a small scale within the limits of a human and sure get more 'value' for your units. With how AoE centric SC2 is now compared to BW due to clumping, theres a ton of a room for adding more unit hotkeys and keeping units spread out to mitigate AoE damage from tanks/colossus/storm/fungal/emp/etc...
Terrans need to stop losing important units in the early midgame.
Banshees, hellions, reapers. A lot of Terrans in TvZ, TvT, will sacrifice them for one or two extra workers or for nothing (running them into/near the opponents base, trying to be cute).
These are hard to produce if you're just going standard marine tank, and add a lot of depth to the army value.
Use reapers to kill rocks, the grenades take them down really quickly. You can use them to kill creep tumors really fast as well. Keep them alive! Hold the far watchtowers, and pull the reaper back before anything kills it Use them for delayed scouts, que them up to hit the mineral line when you're dropping or doing a push. I personally like to have my reaper scout around in TvP for hidden pylons, even after 2 base.
Hellions in TvZ are so valuable it's not even funny. Just keeping the 4-6 hellions from the reactored factory adds a lot of firepower once you get the terran ball moving. You can clear the watch towers quick quick, and if you ever go for blue flame hellions they're perfect for dealing with any sort of Zergling flanks on your tanks. Losing them to a pack of zerglings after you get your expansion down is just retarded.
Banshees should NEVER die in any matchup. Their damage is ridiculous and again: just having them in your main army in the midgame is just so good. Use them for map control, clear towers, kill tumors fast. TvT, cloaked banshees are just really strong in a marine tank army. Cloak them, get a few kills then move back to your ball. Mech TvT, keeping 1-2 cloaked banshees and 1 raven helps deal with the low anti air marine marauder ball SO MUCH, especially since your hellions will kill the marines that jump ahead to kill the banshees.
Just to recap: these uses are completely lost to you if you suicide them for an extra SCV. Unless you're going for a stupid all in, DON'T LOSE THESE UNITS!!
Your ideas are basically nothing to do with the units themselves and more to do with the new tactics available. That's great and all, but (to take your example) in a TvP no one cares about that 4 zealot harass if you lose the big engagement and then get killed - and if you were already 30 supply behind, there's no way to make your army be 2-3x as effective (like Sean was talking about) and win an engagement they shouldn't (outside of something stupid happening).
Basically, go watch a decent amount of broodwar. The difference in well-used unit effectiveness will blow your mind. Until we start seeing players win games with immortal/colossus drop micro, or dominate in fights where they were behind/had a weaker composition, the units don't have the same depth.
If we get that depth, along with things like warp prisms, SC2 might actually get close to (or surpass) it's predecessor.
On January 01 2012 06:59 CrtBalorda wrote: ...And if micro is gona be replaced with smart and creative decision making on what to do with units, no thank you.
You do realize that sc2 is a real time STRATEGY game right? Perhaps you should play League of Legends if all you want to do is micro.
Perhaps we should all play chess because it's a strategy game. The thing that makes Starcraft 2 so incredibly amazing is that fact that you have to be FAST at making these decisions while maintaining the normal things.
On January 01 2012 10:35 Jehct wrote: Your ideas are basically nothing to do with the units themselves and more to do with the new tactics available. That's great and all, but (to take your example) in a TvP no one cares about that 4 zealot harass if you lose the big engagement and then get killed - and if you were already 30 supply behind, there's no way to make your army be 2-3x as effective (like Sean was talking about) and win an engagement they shouldn't (outside of something stupid happening).
Basically, go watch a decent amount of broodwar. The difference in well-used unit effectiveness will blow your mind. Until we start seeing players win games with immortal/colossus drop micro, or dominate in fights where they were behind/had a weaker composition, the units don't have the same depth.
If we get that depth, along with things like warp prisms, SC2 might actually get close to (or surpass) it's predecessor.
i think easier would be to tell people to go to muta micro UMS in bw and see for themselfs
its just different, you cant really make easy comparisons, zergling in bw is different than zergling in sc2 ,not to mention mutalisks and each units roles etc.
im noobish in bw, but when i played muta micro ums's i could clearly see the difference in game design and theory behind it, games are totally different, you could see it by watching beta matches in sc2 when players tried to copy their old styles in bw, there are similarities beetwen both games but game feel and players primary influence is slightly different and lies on different aspects
I think your missing the point he was making. Puling zealots out and dropping purely a decision that is made. "I am going to multi prong harass" is simply a DECISION.
A simple example of what he means is for instance in zvz if one player a-moves lings and banes while the other player target fires baneling with lings and sends single banleing off to get kill, send 2 banes into a group of 3 or more to get an efficient trade. Both players are "Attacking" but one player is using micro to get way more out of their units.
This is why i love zvz ling bling wars, you can open 14/14 and never lose to inferior players simply because your micro is way better than theirs.
Similarly, if you watch MC force-fielding it is terrifying. His game in the TSL vs ies.Ciarra was crazy as he was down 30-40 supply vs roach hydra and his boss toss forcefields allowed him to kill an army most protoss players wouldnt.
Further more, if you watch top terrans vs zerg you see huge amounts of banelings rolling in and somehow they hold? Target firing banes with tanks, targeting the center of a ling clump, splitting are all ways to use micro to get the most out of your units.
And just think about a pro's burrowed banelings vs some random ladder dude...
He is not arguing that these methods dont exist in SC2, just that they are more important as well as appear more in BW than SC2. For example, the difference between idras muta micro and a lower tier pro isnt that significant. The difference is idra macro like a boss while he micros.
Lol. By that definition:
Every single move you make is a decision. Building a hatchery, micro'ing low hp lings away from a surrounded zealot, dropping two zealots splitting marines as you see banelings or know they are there magic boxing mutalisks
It are all decisions:
Some are macro-strategy decisions(Unit compositions), others are micro-strategy decisions(Small drops/harassing). Some are macro-battle(Army placement) decisions, others are micro-battle(Focus fire/loading and unloading/micro'ing low HP units to the back) decisions.
On January 01 2012 06:52 Xlancer wrote: I know I get way more out of my roaches than the average play just from doing burrow micro on hurt roaches. Usually it causes a rage quit from the other player
EDIT: Also I wouldn't say that sc2 has a lower skill ceiling just because the sc2 UI makes it easier to perform the same actions that only pros could do in sc1. At the very least the ceiling would be equal because pros can still do those same actions in sc2, but I would say that sc2 has a much higher potential ceiling because of how much higher the sc2 UI raised baseline skill level.
I don't think you understand the term "skill ceiling". What SC2 raised is skill floor (what you said), which has a priori nothing to do with skill ceiling.
what I'm saying is that with a higher floor on which to stand, that it should be possible to push the ceiling even higher. Just look at the insane things that Automaton 2000 micro is capable of. So with less time needed to macro, more time can be spent learning how to do insane micro.
that was insane... i wonder how close a pro can ever get to that level
I thought a nice little tactic vs terran or potentially toss is to use mutas to clear a small area in your opponents base and then drop some banelings and burrow them undetected there. Then use your mutas to harrass and always pull back toward that spot. If they chase you all the way to the edge with stalkers or marines blow the banelings.
I think banelings currently are not used very efficiently, and I think either banelings drops or burrowed banelings are the key to being more efficient with them!
EH, I don't really think you CAN disagree with Mr. Plott on that point, sir.
In BW it was kinda like having all your units work at 5% capacity at all times... and then having to intensely manage them to get them to work at 100% (What you just told them to do)... and anything beyond that was godlike micro.
In SC2 units basically do what they're told... almost like 100% capacity to start with.
To illustrate, go on a BW map and tell 5 or so units to go back and forth by patrolling... then do the same with an analogous units in SC2. In BW the unit is sure to slam on the brakes at every turn and eventually veer so far off course that they "forget" the patrol command... in SC2 things are relatively smooth for well... forever.
I feel like SC2 might have a higher skill ceiling than SC1 in a more general aspect... but SC2 lacks that the death defying tightrope explosion of APM of Brood War fame. Instead SC2 will have something like super tiny, almost immeasurable by current standards, advantages that will have to build up into a SLIGHTLY different final outcome in the late game mega engagement. The majority won't know why said player won, it'll seem like magic and be thrust onto a thousand different more glaring things... but in the back of many a Pro's head will be a "Hmph, he got those three tiny advantages during the early and mid game and that allowed him to get this tiny advantage here, and since both of them played just about immaculately, it was just a foregone conclusion anyways..." SC2 seems like it will become a war of butterfly flutterings rather than of the tremulous twitching and thwacking of SC:BW.
I really feel that this thread has missed the point. It isn't purely micro that makes things different. Look at my post on the first page with spider mine placement as an example. The issue is that there were things you could do with your units that made them significantly better. This wasn't just a matter of microing individual units. The issue was less that you can make a unit do something and more that you could make a unit do many things. However, out of all the many things you could do, some were better for some situations.
As you learned the game, you learned of all these new things you could do. But the best players would also know the correct time to do each. Mutas are a great example. However, muta micro isn't simply stacking the mutas by selecting them with an overlord. It includes using hold position to instantly fire against some targets while also using right click to target specific buildings or key units. Patrol micro is another example. Mutas as well as other units used this to fire while moving. Arbiter stasis is a game changing ability, but certain targets are better for stasis than others. The more advanced player knows that you want to stasis the units in back to avoid creating a wall blocking off your own units. This needs to be weighed against the danger of running your arbiter forward as well as the goal of targeting a big clump. In addition, unless you were planning on running through the entire siege lines (and a really in depth one could go back a few screens), you wanted to stasis a group that would have actually been key in the fight rather than the groups that is farthest back.
The point isn't just that micro allows skilled players to distinguish themselves. It is that things shouldn't be so obvious. There is such a thing as overmicro. Even without the possibility of overmicro, there is just correct micro vs incorrect. In SC2 you need to stutter step ranged units. That is pretty much it. You want your aoe spells and attacks to target the biggest group. Again, that's all there is to it.
The stalker is a great example of how to do things. It rewards micro, true, but there is also an element of decision making in where to blink. Sometimes you want to blink up into their base, but many times that will get you killed. Often, the best choice is to engage, force a stim, and just blink away. Sometimes, you don't even want to individually blink stalkers, but rather just blink forward to get the largest burst damage and possibly surround to cut off retreat. All of these things are options, and while any one can be executed better or worse, each has its own situational use.
EPT
