|
On January 14 2012 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard specifically mentioned they wanted even low level players to be able to do crazy things and feel epic, hence easy to learn, hard to master. So I think that's partly the motivation for smartcasting. It's annoying as a newbie player to have all your high templars storm the same spot when you select storm as a group. So smart cast seems like a good fix, so that even if you select 50 high templars, only one will storm at a time. Cool. Newbie player can feel epic laying down a ton of storms. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they were trying for epicness. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they hadn't thought of it yet. Consider if BW had smartcasting. Do you really think that would reduce the epicness of BW Storm? Do you think it would need to be nerfed? Nah, probably not.
who knows what would have happened, its fortunate that it didn't i guess.
i for one started watching bw because pros were doing things i couldn't do or didn't know how to do and it impressed the hell out of me.
|
On January 14 2012 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard specifically mentioned they wanted even low level players to be able to do crazy things and feel epic, hence easy to learn, hard to master. So I think that's partly the motivation for smartcasting. It's annoying as a newbie player to have all your high templars storm the same spot when you select storm as a group. So smart cast seems like a good fix, so that even if you select 50 high templars, only one will storm at a time. Cool. Newbie player can feel epic laying down a ton of storms. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they were trying for epicness. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they hadn't thought of it yet. Consider if BW had smartcasting. Do you really think that would reduce the epicness of BW Storm? Do you think it would need to be nerfed? Nah, probably not.
Can't believe you said that...
Of course it would reduce the epicness and it certainly would have to be nerfed somehow otherwise Z can't beat P no matter what.
I hope I pulled a romanian there and missed your sarcasm oO
|
On January 14 2012 09:56 fabiano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:Blizzard specifically mentioned they wanted even low level players to be able to do crazy things and feel epic, hence easy to learn, hard to master. So I think that's partly the motivation for smartcasting. It's annoying as a newbie player to have all your high templars storm the same spot when you select storm as a group. So smart cast seems like a good fix, so that even if you select 50 high templars, only one will storm at a time. Cool. Newbie player can feel epic laying down a ton of storms. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they were trying for epicness. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they hadn't thought of it yet. Consider if BW had smartcasting. Do you really think that would reduce the epicness of BW Storm? Do you think it would need to be nerfed? Nah, probably not. Can't believe you said that... Of course it would reduce the epicness and it certainly would have to be nerfed somehow otherwise Z can't beat P no matter what. I hope I pulled a romanian there and missed your sarcasm oO
Okay so like pros can actually use it properly without smartcasting. Smartcasting would literally do nothing for pros.
So aren't you blatantly saying P > Z and high templar OP?
I see no reason why smartcasting reduces epicness. It's like saying MBS reducing epicness or godforbid: automine.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On January 14 2012 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard specifically mentioned they wanted even low level players to be able to do crazy things and feel epic, hence easy to learn, hard to master. So I think that's partly the motivation for smartcasting. It's annoying as a newbie player to have all your high templars storm the same spot when you select storm as a group. So smart cast seems like a good fix, so that even if you select 50 high templars, only one will storm at a time. Cool. Newbie player can feel epic laying down a ton of storms. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they were trying for epicness. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they hadn't thought of it yet. Consider if BW had smartcasting. Do you really think that would reduce the epicness of BW Storm? Do you think it would need to be nerfed? Nah, probably not.
I am well aware smart casting was not thought of yet... although four years later auto casting was thought of in Age of Mythology. Perhaps the newest innovation for RTS? Get rid of all that useless spam t,t,t,t,t,t? It has cool abilities like turning units into stone or smashing other units far into the air (cyclops) but it turns out its not as cool because it's super easy to do. In fact there's no difference at all from a pro and a poor player on how the cylop's ability is used because it's completely automated with only a cosmetic difference between regular attacks.
But you missed my point. BW storm's epicness come from 2 things- it's hard to do and it's powerful. I believe those two things are very connected. The easier it is to do, the less powerful it can be. If marines and marauders were given a shoot and scoot button, it would make it easier, it would have to be nerfed and it would not be as epic. Same as if we gave an auto spread button for marines. Because it's really hard to make maximum efficiency of all your high templars. Heck, we could even give zerglings that cool ai dodge ability to completely avoid tank splash damage. But in the end, it's just computer automation rather than a player pushing themselves to greater and greater speeds.
And please don't compare battle control to mbs and automine...the entire idea with mbs and automine is that you would have more apm left over to control the battle. Like these cool micro opportunities we would like added. I mean why have spells at all? Every other RTS has abandoned that idea in favour of completely automated armies where you hardly have to think about what your troops are doing except to send another group to capture some other strategic point on the map. The entire concept of spells is taking something that would normally be controlled by the computer and handing it over to the player. But the trade-off is that the player is given more opportunities and show his skill in battle field control.
If BW had smartcasting, storm would have to be nerfed guaranteed and nobody would care about Jangbi storms. Storm's power and a lot of other abilities have this latent potential power due to it's inefficiency. But if you are fast enough, you can get 3 extra storms more than anyone else, the tide will turn because the storms have killing power. Furthermore when you do make extremely powerful spells, the hard to use efficiently creates flexible cap on how many high templar you will end up making at any one time. You can have super imba spells, but the meta-game will never shift to just spam that one spell-caster- because even if you have 2 control groups of high templar, you won't be able to get off all the storms and so they became wasted population and resources. But the faster you are, the higher that cap becomes.
My main contention is that killing stuff is more interesting than a light show that doesn't have a visceral effect on the battlefield (blood, blue goo, blown up tanks.)
But I don't want to bog down this too much with smart-casting as it's more of a side issue as far as the sort of micro is concerned. I personally think it's a big deal, but I suspect many people wanting more BW-esque reflex micro might not want to give up smart casting. It's a detail rather than the main argument.
|
On January 14 2012 14:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 09:56 fabiano wrote:On January 14 2012 09:31 DoubleReed wrote:Blizzard specifically mentioned they wanted even low level players to be able to do crazy things and feel epic, hence easy to learn, hard to master. So I think that's partly the motivation for smartcasting. It's annoying as a newbie player to have all your high templars storm the same spot when you select storm as a group. So smart cast seems like a good fix, so that even if you select 50 high templars, only one will storm at a time. Cool. Newbie player can feel epic laying down a ton of storms. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they were trying for epicness. Smartcasting wasn't in BW because they hadn't thought of it yet. Consider if BW had smartcasting. Do you really think that would reduce the epicness of BW Storm? Do you think it would need to be nerfed? Nah, probably not. Can't believe you said that... Of course it would reduce the epicness and it certainly would have to be nerfed somehow otherwise Z can't beat P no matter what. I hope I pulled a romanian there and missed your sarcasm oO Okay so like pros can actually use it properly without smartcasting. Smartcasting would literally do nothing for pros. So aren't you blatantly saying P > Z and high templar OP? I see no reason why smartcasting reduces epicness. It's like saying MBS reducing epicness or godforbid: automine.
MBS does reduce the "epicness" of macro. No one ever displays "impressive macro" in SC2 because it everyone is good at it due to MBS being a huge crutch.
|
Imagine if the Infestor was in Dota. It'd be the most no skill, first pick hero ever.
|
On January 14 2012 09:34 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 01:23 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 11:25 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 06:29 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 05:40 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 13 2012 04:57 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 13 2012 04:37 Big J wrote:
[quote]
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out. Dude, your duding opining has nothing to do with the duding reality. because the duding reality says that there were no duding banelings, no duding warp gates, no duding reactors and a couple of other duding things in BW. So none of your BW dudes could have known a dude about the metagame, that is still heavily under developement in any SC2 matchup. btw this kind of disagrees with your OP in which you talk about how all the stuff is completly different in SC2 from BW, (which leads to nothing being figuered out). and it would be pretty poor if all the 10years of BW gameplay development had only led to one thing: 4gate. 10 years of BW led to an understanding of RTS fundamentals and mechanics that wasn't present in any game. Strategy and metagame have absolutely nothing to do with that. Also, that kind of childish mockery only makes you look ridiculous. Avoid it if you want to be taken seriously. well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific. Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry. And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around. If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these? Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch. Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread: from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games from zero ressources to Idk... 10? from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units from action from the first minute games to turtle wars honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent. Addressing "RTS fundamentals": It took time before people know how to manage their econ and workers. It took time before people know that they need to Maynard workers (wow what a coincidence that he played wc2 and aoe at a high level. People know that taking more bases meant less money/tech/army now more money later. People know about the tech vs money vs econ thing. People know what micro and macro is. Just a few examples of RTS fundamentals off my head. When I say people I mean waaaaaaaaay more people than in 1998 of course, because even if a few of them know something information doesn't spread fast. -) CnC 4 or World in Conflict has no workers or economy, so it's not a fundamental -) same argument, there are no workers there. Or other argument: in a game in which all your workers have a short lifetime (like mules), transfering them is probably a bad idea. Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. Now imagine a map that has no close expansions. Suddenly this fundamental becomes a game AND mapspecific feature. -) More money later: Well that's something everyone with a basic math understanding can tell you and nothing that has been learned in BW. Progamers had to learn in BW that expansions will pay off, but that is very specific knowledge. But what if you play a game without expansions? What if you play a game in which building an economy is ressource free and therefore only limited by time and clicks (kind of the situation in Empire Earth, once you had farms, workers were so cheap that building more of them didn't hurt you at all)? Other RTS games don't need to have tech at all. Or it doesn't interact with money or economy. Or just play fastest map ever in Starcraft... taking more bases doesn't make a lot of sense there. -) Macro and Micro are defined terms. People always did that since the beginning of RTS games (if the game allowed for it at least... again, tower wars has no micro management, CnC4 has no macro management). On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:
Ok I don't know for sure but, how many trend setters in SC2 are from CnC and Empire Earth where there's little correlation? The top 5 international and Korean players in SC2 are either from BW(MMA MVP Nestea), switched to BW (Beasty) to prepare themselves or are from WC3(Naniwa, Sase).
I'm limiting to trend setters because this isn't 1998 as I said, and everyone copies the top players. I welcome you to prove me wrong if there are some top players from those cnc or ee. Otherwise your long ramble about those 2 games is irrelevant.
Fastest BW is a fun mode.... still I'd assume that someone who played fastest will have a better understanding than on who didn't. Yet, if a game doesn't have either micro or macro, you'd at least learn either micro or macro, that's always better than coming in knowing nothing. Well, you were talking about RTS fundamentals. I just gave counterexamples why those aren't RTS fundamentals. Never said anything about that being related to SC2, rather just wanted to proof that different game means different stuff is efficient/possible/required. I would never disagree that SC2 isn't very closly related to SC:BW. But I disagree that therefore skills are easily transferable. F.e. if I learn something like the backspace inject methode for SC2, it is a pure SC2 skill. Similar for macroing in BW. You won't need that skill in SC2, where you can put more buildings into one Ctrl group. Or like methodes for microing dragoons, vultures or mutalisks are simply different in SC2... No discussion about top fast players (no matter which PC game they are from) being able to learn this very quickly and possibly invent new stuff themselves, but still it has to be learned from scratch. Similar for RTS knowledge: if you are good at any RTS game, you will soon understand that Starcraft 2 is a game that is about distributing ones attention on the right things at the right times. But f.e. if a crackling runby in BW is superhigh priority in ones play, in SC2 it is not, because the canons will hold unless it is a whole army of zerglings... SC2 just like BW is a game of experience. If you don't have enough of it, you can't be good. On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:
Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. errrrr are you below plat or something? Pros and D players do it all the time.... There's absolutely no reason not to, if it's safe (pros will devise a plan to make it safe to do so). I don't understand why people won't do it in SC2 if they have an empty base and they have saturated all their bases. Because a) it is a different game and therefore not efficient enough to justify for the income lost and the risk taken, or b) because people haven't figuered it out yet, the argument many "BW-elitists" (dont want to call anyone like that, because I think it is kind of rude to, but just that you know who is getting adressed by this... in the time I wrote this, I could have written something else long-windedly as well ^^) like the OP don't agree on - just re - read the full quotes. Well or c) the "elephant argument": everyone who plays SC2 is too dumb to figure. (which is actually just point b) with a different motivation to put it) All I want to say is, that no matter how much RTS or BW or whatever experience you have, you will have to learn the SC2 specific mechanics and the SC2 specific fundamentals and the SC2 specific metagame. And the later you start with that, the more you will have to learn and therefore the longer it will take you to get good. And the same is true of course for every other RTS game. Of course it will be pretty easy to dominate some CnC which is only played by a few thousand players overall, but if you want to do that in SC2 or WC3, you better train a lot of SC2 and not something else that is kind of similar. Of course effort matters. But let's take it from a different point of view to explain it better. If you play piano, you'll pick up guitar more quickly, even the trumpet, even though they have very different techniques, even if there are many non-transferable skills. Trumpets don't have chords and trumpet players will struggle with that while learning piano. It's the same will RTS, the fundamentals is similar. before CnC4 there was resource management after all. For example, there's MBS in SC2 but if you play a lot of BW you'll know all of the things Day9 preaches again and again. And let's take dissimilar games out of the arguement because my first post was talking about SC2 trends, which are mostly set by WC3 and BW players. (Maybe aoe?) It's only different at the surface.
I kind of fail to see to which part of what I was saying you are responding... My post already says that the more similar the game gets, the more skill will be transferable.
And of course the trends are set by ex-similar game players. How could it be different? Just because SC2 comes out, a dedicated shooter player won't just switch into RTS and a guy that doesn't like PC games won't become the biggest nerd in the world.
The thing is that they still had to develop everything in SC2 from scratch on. And of course they will try to experiment with stuff that worked in other games. If I invent a teamsport that is a lot about positioning, a soccer player will surely experiment with formations if he switches to it and a american football player will try to center the game around a sort of quarterback. And then some things will work better and some things won't work at all. And then they will start developing gamespecific strategies that will probably be superior to the transfered strategies.
That's how the human brain works. We can't just purely invent something, we always model things of things we already know. But the thing is: We are not at the start of SC2 anymore. If you want to play SC2 you have to learn SC2. Not BW, not WC3 and not anything else that shares any sort of fundamentals. It will help you. But it won't give you the ability to compete with specialists until you have become a specialist yourself.
NesTea, Moon, MVP, Fin, Boxer, Nada, TLO... they are not good SC2 players because they played some game before that. They were when the game was young! But if they had stopped playing 5months ago or if they had just started playing, they would be pure garbage in an SC2 sense. They surely would not have to train 5months to be at the same level they are right now, because they can just copy developments from everyone else, but they still had to devote a lot of time to it and they still had to experience a lot of things themselves (like TLO had to learn the hard way against White Ra that hatch first vs FFE does not pay of at high level, no matter how many drones you pull... or he made it work now... I'm not sure. But I guess you can see what I want to say.)
|
On January 14 2012 14:51 DoubleReed wrote:
Okay so like pros can actually use it properly without smartcasting. Smartcasting would literally do nothing for pros.
Even Jangbi/Stork/Bisu's storm are often pretty far from perfect. Well sometimes one of them is, sometimes for a whole battle they all are, more or less... But no, there's still room for improvement in their templar control.
And still, it's better than the one of other A-teamer, then B-teamer, then practise partner, random top fish server player, top level foreigner, C level on Iccup, mine, my grandmother's...
Thank god for no smartcasting in bw.
|
On January 14 2012 06:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 05:39 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 04:59 jinorazi wrote:On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 04:15 jinorazi wrote:
micro limiting spells existed in bw. the key difference is, in bw, it was late, late game stuff and rarely used because it took long (tech+upgrade+waiting for mana regeneration)
it is very abundant in sc2.
blizzard wanted to make it fancy for the viewers, therefore making spells available earlier in the game.
i guess the debate is, is it good or bad for the gameplay? and the debate has to be led about each and every single such spell, because as seen from broodwar, different spells (the broodwar ones) and different usage (the broodwar usage) in a different enviroment (broodwar) lead to a different opinion within the same person. Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit you're ability to micro, because they limit the area in which micro can take place. But that again is also an interesting aspect of such spells. If you want to hear my opinion on those things: FFs are necessary, but I don't like their offensive usabilities (probably because I'm zerg). If they could get rid of it, or change it so you can't use mass sentries offensively, I would love that. Fungal is a great spell imo. Used with burrowed infestors (or without them), it allows for so much stuff, not even to mention infestor drops etc. It really makes it necessary to split up your units when engaging infestor play and also to keep them split at all times. Also the low dps (yes fungal has very low dps compared to real high dps units like bio or lings or blings or tanks or colossi etc...) make it so that not overfungaling is important, which makes it hard to control in a battle, when lots of things are going on. The only thing that is a little frustrating is to see how strong it is against zealots and sentries and zerglings and banelings (like storm in SC2 and BW) Dark swarm is a great example that forces micro and does not prevent micro. exactly. like fungal. it decreases microability in a certain area and increases overall micro in a battle Not at all in the same way. This isn't even comparing the same things. Limiting micro as described by jinornazi means your opponent throws something down and when you click on your unit, you literally cannot move it. All the spam clicking in the world will not free you from FG or Forcefields. That is what is meant by limiting micro. Dark Swarm, siege tanks, and lurkers threaten a zone. And you have to devise a plan that will mitigate that threat. If you are halfway into the engagement and realize the threat is great... you can click on your units and click them back and they will move. FF's and FG's you engage and you are locked into place and though you think it wise to retreat, you click on your units and there is nothing you can do. THAT is limiting micro.
so how is this worse than siege tanks or reavers? I run into range of them... my units are dead.
If I run into the range of an infestor... there is the chance my opponent screws up, there is the chance that I have siege tanks or colossi or HT or somthing in pace to kill infestors when they try to refungal...
Just compare it: Siege tanks in SC2 have the same amount of damage as infestors do. Instantly!
In SC1 it was a even a little higher for siege tanks and way higher for reavers. And still you consider this to be superior for microability... I just don't see your point. If my unit is dead there is nothing left to micro. If my units are fungaled I can't micro them, but I have a chance to safe some of them/they have a use until they are dead (they still shoot).
|
Blizzard is too concerned with "unit counters" when it comes to balance in SC 2. If you're not convinced just watch any HOTS interview with D. Kim or D. Browder; all they talk about is how a new unit will be good against another unit (straight up example: the Tempest will be the direct counter to mass Mutas).
Wouldn't you guys agree that the better way to design new units is to just give them clear, useful and most of the time unique characteristics and leave it up to the player to utilize those attributes in whatever ways he can. Just treat SC 2 like a sandbox, where creativity of the player can shine when un-restrictive design is put on the units. I don't want to play a flashy version of rock paper scissors. I want to play the best designed RTS on the planet.
I think the lack of zone control is a whole other monster of an issue that should be addressed as well.
|
I agree with nearly everything the TE stated - except concusive shells and especially the Phoenix.
I think the phoenix is the only interesting unit implemented in SC2 compared to SC:BW - as it has a nice casting ability (lift) and needs micro (attack while move).
Compared to the other trash blizzard implemented (thors, roaches, collossus) i think phoenixes are really good.
|
On January 14 2012 20:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 06:01 Falling wrote:On January 14 2012 05:39 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 04:59 jinorazi wrote:On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 04:15 jinorazi wrote:
micro limiting spells existed in bw. the key difference is, in bw, it was late, late game stuff and rarely used because it took long (tech+upgrade+waiting for mana regeneration)
it is very abundant in sc2.
blizzard wanted to make it fancy for the viewers, therefore making spells available earlier in the game.
i guess the debate is, is it good or bad for the gameplay? and the debate has to be led about each and every single such spell, because as seen from broodwar, different spells (the broodwar ones) and different usage (the broodwar usage) in a different enviroment (broodwar) lead to a different opinion within the same person. Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit you're ability to micro, because they limit the area in which micro can take place. But that again is also an interesting aspect of such spells. If you want to hear my opinion on those things: FFs are necessary, but I don't like their offensive usabilities (probably because I'm zerg). If they could get rid of it, or change it so you can't use mass sentries offensively, I would love that. Fungal is a great spell imo. Used with burrowed infestors (or without them), it allows for so much stuff, not even to mention infestor drops etc. It really makes it necessary to split up your units when engaging infestor play and also to keep them split at all times. Also the low dps (yes fungal has very low dps compared to real high dps units like bio or lings or blings or tanks or colossi etc...) make it so that not overfungaling is important, which makes it hard to control in a battle, when lots of things are going on. The only thing that is a little frustrating is to see how strong it is against zealots and sentries and zerglings and banelings (like storm in SC2 and BW) Dark swarm is a great example that forces micro and does not prevent micro. exactly. like fungal. it decreases microability in a certain area and increases overall micro in a battle Not at all in the same way. This isn't even comparing the same things. Limiting micro as described by jinornazi means your opponent throws something down and when you click on your unit, you literally cannot move it. All the spam clicking in the world will not free you from FG or Forcefields. That is what is meant by limiting micro. Dark Swarm, siege tanks, and lurkers threaten a zone. And you have to devise a plan that will mitigate that threat. If you are halfway into the engagement and realize the threat is great... you can click on your units and click them back and they will move. FF's and FG's you engage and you are locked into place and though you think it wise to retreat, you click on your units and there is nothing you can do. THAT is limiting micro. so how is this worse than siege tanks or reavers? I run into range of them... my units are dead. If I run into the range of an infestor... there is the chance my opponent screws up, there is the chance that I have siege tanks or colossi or HT or somthing in pace to kill infestors when they try to refungal... Just compare it: Siege tanks in SC2 have the same amount of damage as infestors do. Instantly! In SC1 it was a even a little higher for siege tanks and way higher for reavers. And still you consider this to be superior for microability... I just don't see your point. If my unit is dead there is nothing left to micro. If my units are fungaled I can't micro them, but I have a chance to safe some of them/they have a use until they are dead (they still shoot).
Your unit do not die immediately , unless you are trying to destroy or cut down the size of a siege tank line that's creeping up to your base . How can your unit's die easily , when they have upgrades ? , An upgraded siege tank will do splash damage of course but a single shot will not kill it except if it's a freaking zergling and not a dragoon.
Same goes as the Reaver , It takes two scarabs to kill a siege tank , Point is siege tank are defensive unit's which do only good in siege mode , however you do not suicide units in to a siege tank line without trying to stasis most of the tank's behind the tank line . It's like feeding the siege tank , each units the siege tank kill's it's get stronger in it's damage (well that's how i see it ) .
|
On January 14 2012 20:57 R3demption wrote:
Blizzard is too concerned with "unit counters" when it comes to balance in SC 2. If you're not convinced just watch any HOTS interview with D. Kim or D. Browder; all they talk about is how a new unit will be good against another unit (straight up example: the Tempest will be the direct counter to mass Mutas).
Wouldn't you guys agree that the better way to design new units is to just give them clear, useful and most of the time unique characteristics and leave it up to the player to utilize those attributes in whatever ways he can. Just treat SC 2 like a sandbox, where creativity of the player can shine when un-restrictive design is put on the units. I don't want to play a flashy version of rock paper scissors. I want to play the best designed RTS on the planet.
I think the lack of zone control is a whole other monster of an issue that should be addressed as well.
first of all it isn't exactly like that... It's often times just that they HAVE to say something about the unit, but take the oracle or the replicator as other examples... They don't really have a straight counter role. Of course the replicator is shown how it is used against siege tanks, but if they show it, they have to show a use of it. And well, if they would show the Tempest fighting marines and talk about how it interacts with them, everyone would just say that they are completly stupid to show that, because noone is interested in seeing the Tempest getting shut down.
And well, second of all: SC2 is a lot closer to "machinelike"-control than for example BW was (or any other game with inferior pathing and less unit selection, less smartcasting etc etc...). That means that those "counter"-arguments simply become a lot stronger.
Just think about that: 1roach or 1stalker isn't soooo bad vs 1 marauder. 10roaches vs 10marauders just get decimated ("sniped") so fast, that their damage output in their fight is a lot lower than in the 1v1 scenario and therefore the outcome of the battle becomes a lot more drastic.
Now if you fight in balls or concaves, you always have those "lots vs lots"-scenarios. If you move more in lines and more spread out like in BW, you always have little 1v1, 2v2 scenarios, at least for some time. Therefore the "actual balance" (so in a machine scenario with perfect control) is way less important (units will always do a lot of damage to each other). I would even go that far to say that BWs lack of control circumvents the need to balance and rebalance a lot things.
|
On January 14 2012 21:17 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 20:33 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 06:01 Falling wrote:On January 14 2012 05:39 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 04:59 jinorazi wrote:On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 04:15 jinorazi wrote:
micro limiting spells existed in bw. the key difference is, in bw, it was late, late game stuff and rarely used because it took long (tech+upgrade+waiting for mana regeneration)
it is very abundant in sc2.
blizzard wanted to make it fancy for the viewers, therefore making spells available earlier in the game.
i guess the debate is, is it good or bad for the gameplay? and the debate has to be led about each and every single such spell, because as seen from broodwar, different spells (the broodwar ones) and different usage (the broodwar usage) in a different enviroment (broodwar) lead to a different opinion within the same person. Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit you're ability to micro, because they limit the area in which micro can take place. But that again is also an interesting aspect of such spells. If you want to hear my opinion on those things: FFs are necessary, but I don't like their offensive usabilities (probably because I'm zerg). If they could get rid of it, or change it so you can't use mass sentries offensively, I would love that. Fungal is a great spell imo. Used with burrowed infestors (or without them), it allows for so much stuff, not even to mention infestor drops etc. It really makes it necessary to split up your units when engaging infestor play and also to keep them split at all times. Also the low dps (yes fungal has very low dps compared to real high dps units like bio or lings or blings or tanks or colossi etc...) make it so that not overfungaling is important, which makes it hard to control in a battle, when lots of things are going on. The only thing that is a little frustrating is to see how strong it is against zealots and sentries and zerglings and banelings (like storm in SC2 and BW) Dark swarm is a great example that forces micro and does not prevent micro. exactly. like fungal. it decreases microability in a certain area and increases overall micro in a battle Not at all in the same way. This isn't even comparing the same things. Limiting micro as described by jinornazi means your opponent throws something down and when you click on your unit, you literally cannot move it. All the spam clicking in the world will not free you from FG or Forcefields. That is what is meant by limiting micro. Dark Swarm, siege tanks, and lurkers threaten a zone. And you have to devise a plan that will mitigate that threat. If you are halfway into the engagement and realize the threat is great... you can click on your units and click them back and they will move. FF's and FG's you engage and you are locked into place and though you think it wise to retreat, you click on your units and there is nothing you can do. THAT is limiting micro. so how is this worse than siege tanks or reavers? I run into range of them... my units are dead. If I run into the range of an infestor... there is the chance my opponent screws up, there is the chance that I have siege tanks or colossi or HT or somthing in pace to kill infestors when they try to refungal... Just compare it: Siege tanks in SC2 have the same amount of damage as infestors do. Instantly! In SC1 it was a even a little higher for siege tanks and way higher for reavers. And still you consider this to be superior for microability... I just don't see your point. If my unit is dead there is nothing left to micro. If my units are fungaled I can't micro them, but I have a chance to safe some of them/they have a use until they are dead (they still shoot). Your unit do not die immediately , unless you are trying to destroy or cut down the size of a siege tank line that's creeping up to your base . How can your unit's die easily , when they have upgrades ? , An upgraded siege tank will do splash damage of course but a single shot will not kill it except if it's a freaking zergling and not a dragoon. Same goes as the Reaver , It takes two scarabs to kill a siege tank , Point is siege tank are defensive unit's which do only good in siege mode , however you do not suicide units in to a siege tank line without trying to stasis most of the tank's behind the tank line . It's like feeding the siege tank , each units the siege tank kill's it's get stronger in it's damage (well that's how i see it ) .
yeah, that's why I wrote Siege Tanks and Reavers (not the "s" at the end of each of those units). A single infestor doesn't kill anything, and 4 SC2 seconds are not enough to bring in Infestors that are not in position to refungal.
btw off topic: I never understood the terrans that were whining about Infestors when they were charging in with clumped marines, while they always kept arguing that the reason why I lost a game was that I attacked into a siege line...
|
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save.
|
On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save.
until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then.
It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play.
It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages.
|
On January 14 2012 21:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 20:57 R3demption wrote:
Blizzard is too concerned with "unit counters" when it comes to balance in SC 2. If you're not convinced just watch any HOTS interview with D. Kim or D. Browder; all they talk about is how a new unit will be good against another unit (straight up example: the Tempest will be the direct counter to mass Mutas).
Wouldn't you guys agree that the better way to design new units is to just give them clear, useful and most of the time unique characteristics and leave it up to the player to utilize those attributes in whatever ways he can. Just treat SC 2 like a sandbox, where creativity of the player can shine when un-restrictive design is put on the units. I don't want to play a flashy version of rock paper scissors. I want to play the best designed RTS on the planet.
I think the lack of zone control is a whole other monster of an issue that should be addressed as well. first of all it isn't exactly like that... It's often times just that they HAVE to say something about the unit, but take the oracle or the replicator as other examples... They don't really have a straight counter role. Of course the replicator is shown how it is used against siege tanks, but if they show it, they have to show a use of it. And well, if they would show the Tempest fighting marines and talk about how it interacts with them, everyone would just say that they are completly stupid to show that, because noone is interested in seeing the Tempest getting shut down. And well, second of all: SC2 is a lot closer to "machinelike"-control than for example BW was (or any other game with inferior pathing and less unit selection, less smartcasting etc etc...). That means that those "counter"-arguments simply become a lot stronger. Just think about that: 1roach or 1stalker isn't soooo bad vs 1 marauder. 10roaches vs 10marauders just get decimated ("sniped") so fast, that their damage output in their fight is a lot lower than in the 1v1 scenario and therefore the outcome of the battle becomes a lot more drastic. Now if you fight in balls or concaves, you always have those "lots vs lots"-scenarios. If you move more in lines and more spread out like in BW, you always have little 1v1, 2v2 scenarios, at least for some time. Therefore the "actual balance" (so in a machine scenario with perfect control) is way less important (units will always do a lot of damage to each other). I would even go that far to say that BWs lack of control circumvents the need to balance and rebalance a lot things.
The oracle and replicator are IMO the FIRST UNITS they designed correctly. They have unique and cool ass abilities that have clear functions but also could have nuances that make them even more useful to skilled players. None of them are counter based.
BUT
Let me reiterate my point. If you feel Blizzard did not design every unit with specific counter ideas, then go to the Starcraft2.com website and look up units. Each one has a list of which units its good against and which units its bad against. This naturally implies a "I brought a knife to a gunfight I lose" scenario or vice versa. So yeah I completely believe thats how Blizzard made the game.
Let me further reiterate how I feel it should be, "I brought a knife to a spear fight" my knife is not great vs spears but If I'm wayyyy more skilled with a knife than he is with a spear then I should win.
Introduce Macro mechanics: My opponent is crafty and makes TWO spears in this fight, I must have even better knife skills to combat this advantage.
Im trying to be funny but you still get my point.
|
On January 14 2012 21:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save. until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then. It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play. It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages.
Ugh.. So many make this arguement. Just take casting abilities out of the equation people! Keep it simpler.
What if its too early for Blink and he has Conc shell (which is entirely possible). I have Stalkers, what can I do now with my Stalkers to increase my chances of winning an engagement with Marauders? Step 1: Attack move. The pathing of the game forms a natural concave with out any real input from me. Step 2??? What can I do now!? My entire life depends on this one engagement, I have the opportunity cost to use up all right now to help try and save me! Well, I cant really do nothing but sit back and watch really... Not with micro reducing conc shell.
|
On January 14 2012 21:41 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 21:18 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 20:57 R3demption wrote:
Blizzard is too concerned with "unit counters" when it comes to balance in SC 2. If you're not convinced just watch any HOTS interview with D. Kim or D. Browder; all they talk about is how a new unit will be good against another unit (straight up example: the Tempest will be the direct counter to mass Mutas).
Wouldn't you guys agree that the better way to design new units is to just give them clear, useful and most of the time unique characteristics and leave it up to the player to utilize those attributes in whatever ways he can. Just treat SC 2 like a sandbox, where creativity of the player can shine when un-restrictive design is put on the units. I don't want to play a flashy version of rock paper scissors. I want to play the best designed RTS on the planet.
I think the lack of zone control is a whole other monster of an issue that should be addressed as well. first of all it isn't exactly like that... It's often times just that they HAVE to say something about the unit, but take the oracle or the replicator as other examples... They don't really have a straight counter role. Of course the replicator is shown how it is used against siege tanks, but if they show it, they have to show a use of it. And well, if they would show the Tempest fighting marines and talk about how it interacts with them, everyone would just say that they are completly stupid to show that, because noone is interested in seeing the Tempest getting shut down. And well, second of all: SC2 is a lot closer to "machinelike"-control than for example BW was (or any other game with inferior pathing and less unit selection, less smartcasting etc etc...). That means that those "counter"-arguments simply become a lot stronger. Just think about that: 1roach or 1stalker isn't soooo bad vs 1 marauder. 10roaches vs 10marauders just get decimated ("sniped") so fast, that their damage output in their fight is a lot lower than in the 1v1 scenario and therefore the outcome of the battle becomes a lot more drastic. Now if you fight in balls or concaves, you always have those "lots vs lots"-scenarios. If you move more in lines and more spread out like in BW, you always have little 1v1, 2v2 scenarios, at least for some time. Therefore the "actual balance" (so in a machine scenario with perfect control) is way less important (units will always do a lot of damage to each other). I would even go that far to say that BWs lack of control circumvents the need to balance and rebalance a lot things. The oracle and replicator are IMO the FIRST UNITS they designed correctly. They have unique and cool ass abilities that have clear functions but also could have nuances that make them even more useful to skilled players. None of them are counter based. BUT Let me reiterate my point. If you feel Blizzard did not design every unit with specific counter ideas, then go to the Starcraft2.com website and look up units. Each one has a list of which units its good against and which units its bad against. This naturally implies a "I brought a knife to a gunfight I lose" scenario or vice versa. So yeah I completely believe thats how Blizzard made the game. Let me further reiterate how I feel it should be, "I brought a knife to a spear fight" my knife is not great vs spears but If I'm wayyyy more skilled with a knife than he is with a spear then I should win. Introduce Macro mechanics: My opponent is crafty and makes TWO spears in this fight, I must have even better knife skills to combat this advantage. Im trying to be funny but you still get my point.
Yeah, I don't see how this isn't like that... at least in most scenerios:
Blink Stalkers beat marauders in low number fights with enough control at least if they are positioned offensivly with a lot of room to retreat regenerate force multiple stims etc... Well, if my opponent is crafty and makes a LOT of marauders, I better be REALLY good with this kind of micro, up to the point that you won't have the APM for that due to human restrictions.
(same example with marines and banelings, marines and stalkers, speed or even speed+burrow roaches and marines, mutalisks and phoenix - mutalisks lose the 1A fight, but if you're crafty and skilled you will have more mutalisks and you will counteract his movement and keep on killing a lot of phoenix, Colossi and the old NP... to bad they romved that...  and other examples)
You're knife fight will also become useless once your opponent has built a phalanx with his spear guys and "A-moves" them towards you. Can't outmicro that with humans...
or to put it in a BW scenario, once the siegeline becomes to big (and is well controlled and positioned), you simply won't be able to beat it anymore with protoss ground. You need Carriers or go basetrade but you are being hardcountered.
I won't disagree that the SC2 metagame would be more fun if we saw more of that, but right now people are still not good enough for that. They still experiment a lot with general timings and compositions. Those "little" micro things will only become essential, once everything is really stable. Give it more time. And if you don't want to wait, watch creative players like WhiteRA, TLO or HongUn on their streams. They play "inferior" compositions, but with so much skill that they just outmicro/multitask their opponent. (ever seen TLO's roach drop strategy in ZvT and ZvP, where he just keeps on microing 4+ fronts at once with drops, pick up micro, burrow micro... against the standard "antiroach" compositions?)
Especially TLO keeps on saying that in his eyes, noone plays the game really well right now. There is so much stuff he would like to do, but he just can't due to mechanical issues. The game isn't figuered. It's far from figuered!
|
On January 14 2012 21:45 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 21:29 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save. until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then. It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play. It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages. Ugh.. So many make this arguement. Just take casting abilities out of the equation people! Keep it simpler. What if its too early for Blink and he has Conc shell (which is entirely possible). I have Stalkers, what can I do now with my Stalkers to increase my chances of winning an engagement with Marauders? Step 1: Attack move. The pathing of the game forms a natural concave with out any real input from me. Step 2??? What can I do now!? My entire life depends on this one engagement, I have the opportunity cost to use up all right now to help try and save me! Well, I cant really do nothing but sit back and watch really... Not with micro reducing conc shell.
No, I won't make it simpler. All you BW guys do is argue that the game is too simple and when I give you a complex argument back, I should keep it simpler... That's exactly why you don't see the beauty of SC2. You keep it simple in your head when it really isn't.
I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing. Then you tell me that you can do zealot drops and stuff like that and I can tell you "keep it simple. what if you don't have zealot drops...". And if you have a timing problem with the blink vs conc shells argument, then you will either have to develope a concept in which you get an earlier blink, or you will have to accept that there is a timing in which you don't have it against conc shells, like you accepted that there are hydra timings against which you don't have storm in BW...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
