|
On January 15 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 13:09 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 15 2012 11:16 Myrddraal wrote:On January 11 2012 03:09 EternaLLegacy wrote:
There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them.
This is just plain wrong, not to say that every situation can be micro'd against, but there are certainly some in which the micro of the other player changes the outcome completely. I will give you a situation in each match up where forcefields are micro'd against. PvT: Protoss throws down forcefields cutting the army in half, Terran proceeds to stim and kite anyway (not backwards obviously) in order to do maximum damage. If there was any gap in the forcefield wall, Terran will likely escape the majority of their units and sustain little damage. Zealots are now in a bad position if there are any left and Terran comes out on top due to good micro. Alternatively, if Terran has Medivacs in the above situation, he lifts up his trapped units and drops them back on the other side of the forcefields, now the forcefields are acting against the Protoss as his Zealots will be unable to attack. PvZ: Protoss forcefields off a bunch of Roaches, they burrow move under them and kill off the Protoss units/ burrow move to escape the trapped Roaches. Can go further where the Protoss tries to throw down more forcefields so the Roaches can't unburrow and have to keep moving. PvP: Not quite as common but using Archons/Colossi to bust down a Forcefield and attack up a ramp, or down a ramp depending on the situation. Only really counting this as Micro because of how much effort it takes to get Archons to do what you want. Also, there is quite often a dance between two players when forcefields are a threat, and in my opinion this can often be a tense and complex micro situation that not only increases the micro required, but adds a great deal of depth to what would otherwise be a clear cut engagement. So your counterexamples are: A case where Protoss screws up, a case where one unit using an expensive (250/250) ability can somewhat negate the FFs, and a case where only 2 units (and you concede, really 1) can even do anything about a FF. And then you talk about a dance between players before engagement, as if that's something that happens only because of FF, and doesn't happen in BW as well. I think you need to start thinking big picture here. I don't really know what you're talking about. FF is clearly one of the most interesting abilities both theoretically and in practice. I mean, do you really think BW would be significantly worse if protoss had a similar forcefielding ability? It clearly adds quite a bit of complexity to engaging and micro in general. Not to mention overall strategies that can rely on forcefields to stay alive until better things can be obtained. It just seems like you're against it because it's not BWish and then you come up with reasons that it's bad with post hoc rationalization. It's not supposed to be exactly like other abilities, and it has rather unique uses. And quite frankly it's rare that it's just "FF lololol" anymore like you keep saying. Players are getting better with dealing with it, which is raising the skill cap in terms of unit control. You were the one saying there's no dancing with FF, when there blatantly is. It's not just because of FF and he never said that. When you say something that's just wrong then it's just wrong.
Yes, it would certainly negatively impact BW and make ZvP impossible.
I'm against it cause it's a 1 sided ability. It's up to the protoss to land good ones, but once they're down that's it. Players are better with dealing with it because people adapt and players get better.
Maybe your reading comprehension is lacking, but FF clearly REDUCES micro available to the opposing player. That's literally the point of the spell.
|
I think if we step back, we'll realize that:
the Colossus, Tempest, Thor, and other low micro/high damage/high supply units
fungal being complete paralysis
similar '2nd' units (marauder, roach, stalker)
combat shield
terran add-on mechanic (near-instantaneous strategic flexibility)
lackluster Terran mech / a fear of widespread AoE one-shotting (EG 1 Colossus can't one shot marines)
a lack of spell animations
missing high-ground mechanic
moving shot micro/spacing engine constraints
macro mechanics (yes, I love them, but we may want to revisit their effect on game volatility and potential for comebacks)
similar army quantities between races (zerg has lost its 1 supply staple unit)
are much bigger hindrances to SC2's full potential in terms of excitement and skill ceiling than FF is.
On January 15 2012 16:16 EternaLLegacy wrote:
FF clearly REDUCES micro available to the opposing player. That's literally the point of the spell.
Yes, it is reduced, but it is not eliminated entirely, so it still does more good than harm to the spectating/playing excitement and game dynamics. Contrast this with fungal growth, which completely eliminates movement (BW version made them move very slow, but micro could still be done).
The question is, does Blizzard have the courage to drastically change a game with such a developed competitive scene that they themselves have accelerated? Browder said that any unit was fair game for axing, but in reality, I think he will be extremely reluctant to remove or alter any unit that sees common use in the current competitive scene. This is evidenced by his HotS approach of adding tacked-on niche reaper-esque (but worse) harass units independent of the Colossus AoE deathball.
|
FF also fullfills one of OP's complaints about map control. Just a few sentries and you can control your base and expo for a very long time in this game.
|
the OP has a lot of sensationalist claims that simply aren't true. This reason alone should render it and all discussion thereof entirely moot.
|
On January 11 2012 03:09 EternaLLegacy wrote:
A) Micro-reducing abilities
.
.
.
1) Sentries and Forcefield:
.
.
.
2) Fungal Growth:
I personally feel, much like Day[J], that there are ingame solutions to these issues.
You state, that if these micro-reducing abilities hit your army, nothing can be done about it and that you could just as well sit back and enjoy the slaughter taking place.
- In ZvP where forcefields are a pain, get Tunneling Claws/Burrrow for your roaches!
- In PvP you can either go Colossus or Archon to crush FFs, or get Blink to allow stalkers to circumvent them.
- In mid to lategame PvZ where you run the risk of getting chain fungaled while broods are approaching ---> Mass recall!
- Tactical Nukes in TvX just screams "come at me with your fancy magic, bro"
- EMP those puny spellcasters before they get a chance to cast their dreaded spells.
These few samples may or may not be all that viable att certain stages of the game where the micro reducing ability may be available. But fact of the matter remains: there are quite a handfull of ways to nullify/reduce the effectiveness of your opponents magic tricks.
|
On January 11 2012 04:41 Mjolnir wrote:
My God. This was such a great read. Such a great read.
Two things I liked the most:
1. The bit about Day9, who let's be honest, thinks there's a solution to everything and nothing in this game is broken at all - ever. I suppose I can't blame him though, touting the game as fantastic earns him an income.
2. The bit about siege tanks. Seriously, these units are just depressing in SC2. No longer do you make an army to support your tanks, you now make tanks to support your army - until you realize that you don't really need tanks because they die in a heartbeat to fucking everything that walks and can't even one-shot a marine. On top of which, their positional strength is circumvented by a ridiculous number of units and mechanics. I long for the days of the BW siege tank. Mean, terrifying, imposing. An actual presence on the field.
Good write up. Lots of work went into this. You hit so many points right on the button.
The fact that siege tanks are so pathetic is one of the reasons I quit playing Starcraft 2. I'm not that good at micro so I try to play a positional game, which is quite impossible if siege tanks can't even one-shot zerglings and marines. Siege Tanks were downright terrifying in Starcraft 1, in Starcraft 2 you can't even use them to hold an expansion. Ironically, according to the lore they're supposed to be an upgraded version of the Brood War tanks.
|
On January 15 2012 17:55 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:41 Mjolnir wrote:
My God. This was such a great read. Such a great read.
Two things I liked the most:
1. The bit about Day9, who let's be honest, thinks there's a solution to everything and nothing in this game is broken at all - ever. I suppose I can't blame him though, touting the game as fantastic earns him an income.
2. The bit about siege tanks. Seriously, these units are just depressing in SC2. No longer do you make an army to support your tanks, you now make tanks to support your army - until you realize that you don't really need tanks because they die in a heartbeat to fucking everything that walks and can't even one-shot a marine. On top of which, their positional strength is circumvented by a ridiculous number of units and mechanics. I long for the days of the BW siege tank. Mean, terrifying, imposing. An actual presence on the field.
Good write up. Lots of work went into this. You hit so many points right on the button.
The fact that siege tanks are so pathetic is one of the reasons I quit playing Starcraft 2. I'm not that good at micro so I try to play a positional game, which is quite impossible if siege tanks can't even one-shot zerglings and marines. Siege Tanks were downright terrifying in Starcraft 1, in Starcraft 2 you can't even use them to hold an expansion. Ironically, according to the lore they're supposed to be an upgraded version of the Brood War tanks.
...? Yes you can. They're still extremely good versus Zerg and Terran. They've lost their place in TvP because you lack vultures/goliaths like you do in sc1.
|
You ever face 3/3 mech late game at the higher ends of iccup? It's not the vultures/goliaths that I'm afraid of, lol
|
Great article. Agree with most of the thing you say. Lack of zone/map control unit result in deadball vs deadball which is boring.
|
I'm really sorry you took all that time to write this post, because it is eloquent, entertaining and very descriptive. However, you arrive at conclusions most of which are not supported by the current state of the game.
I will leave aside the three things you have correctly analysed: the Thor, the Marauder, and the Colossus. Bear in mind, still, that the latter has to be "supported", if you will, by the map. How many maps currently used in 1v1 tournaments have a single cliff in the middle of the battlezone? Yeah, I rest my case.
You come to false conclusions because you start from false premises, and as anybody who has taken a course on Propositional Calculus will tell you, if you start from a false hypothesis you can conclude anything. Let's start with this: micro-reducing abilities or mechanics are not general design flaws. Your very first example, Pong, proves this but there are always the people that will make the opposite case (ie. Pong is more fun/exciting/easier with paddles that move instantaneously and at high speed), as we've learned after 40 years of computer gaming. You must also consider your scenarios (“does he hit good forcefields or not?”) outside of a static context. Players will not base their play over such questions, but will extend their logic as follows: "can I bait her into hitting bad force fields? how will I further exploit that? if she hits good force fields, how can I minimize my losses?", and so forth. All the answers to those questions have a profound effect on the outcome of every battle that involves sentries (to stick to the example), as we can clearly see from the thousands of games played already.
Secondly, you posit that replacing all chess pieces with pawns amounts to such a mechanic. You are half right, because it has much more fundamental effects. The framework chess is built on is one with differentiated pieces (/units) under the control of two players. By magically making them homogenous, you have reduced chess to checkers. The Starcraft analogous is team monobattles with just one unit (marines) in a perfectly symmetric map; of course they are fun, but can we really say it would be a successful, fun and engaging experience for both casual gaming as well as professional, with a straight face? I think whoever does would clearly be lying.
Thirdly, you have roaches. You are correct in the points you are making, but you left out two important details:
1. the roach has an extremely high food cost, a fact that does not go hand-in-hand with the Zerg swarming mentality
2. players are figuring out ways to get out of silly situations arising from mass roach/-ling play
I therefore think roaches will eventually reach the point of being a decent tank in small numbers. Their current use does not reflect on their mechanics, only in their synergies with the rest of the Zerg units and as such I think it's only natural that players want to exploit that by massing them. Those strategies will not live on for much longer, though.
I will not comment on the perceived lack of zone control units, as I think that's already been covered in other comments, as well as every recent TvX match. The HotS units are also a step in that direction, so yay, I guess. With static defense, you hit the nail on the head. It's a double edged sword, but it's not as hard to balance as you make it seem. I recall a comment by Blizzard developers that essentially said they are working on it but I can't currently find it to provide the link, so take that with a grain of salt.
A parting comment; if anybody is serious about analyzing the complex interactions between units, players and game mechanics I'd suggest you start by reading about game theory and following blogs like altdevblogaday, where such concepts are frequently discussed by people involved in the business.
Cheers.
|
On January 15 2012 04:46 EternaLLegacy wrote:
And I'm not trying to be snide to Big J. I just legitimately think he's never played BW, at least 1v1. Many SC2 players haven't, and many freely admit to that. It's just frustrating when those players talk about BW as if they're BW players, when they're not. Obviously I'm an SC2 player, or I wouldn't have made this thread in the first place. I played at a fairly high level all throughout beta and for a while on release, but now I just play at mid masters level casually, if you care to know.
well, I tried to stay away from this comment, but as you really want to know:
I have hardly ever played 1v1 on the internet, because at those times we didn't have a connection that I was allowed to use for gaming.
As it was my favorite game at that time I have played it a lot vs the AI over the years and on LAN-parties vs friends. I've started watching VODs after I started watching SC2 VODs and streams.
If you care that much about how much personal experience I have, then you really don't have to discuss with me. Not that it would change anything. The 1-2 replies I got from you already revealed that we just disagree in our core arguments.
You say that SC2 has gone through lots of years of development ("the point were foreign broodwar was when SC2 started"), I disagree and say that SC2 had 1 year of development. Maybe a more intense than BWs first year, but in my eyes it still isn't even half way at the point were broodwar is right now. Possibly even further away.
On January 15 2012 03:43 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:45 R3demption wrote: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... Im not a broodwar guy... Never played the game. But since picking up SC 2 I have watched old broodwar games. And I admit, without any fan bias: they are on average more exiting games to watch. Even without an english commentator I could understand most games and clearly see how a players micro saved him or lost him the game. Thats because the unit designs were magnificent: both simple AND complex at the same time. My favorite player to watch iin BW is Bisu. When he first came out with the Bisu build Blizzard did not come out with a counter chart that said DT/Sair was good against Zerg. Bisu was an artist, putting together a combination of units and using them in a magnificent way. I don't see how this kind of discovery can happen in SC 2. The unit designs are too restrictive (too fine a purpose for each unit). Want to know why reavers beat collossis? Reavers had high damage but were slow. To compensate they could be used in combo with drop ships to increase mobility. But thats not all... they could be used to harass with a dropship!! All of this requiring considerable micro. PS I love watching SC 2 games
Well, I guess I didn't hurt your feelings then by calling you a BW guy.  Just wanted to say that there are more people who argue this way ("SC2 is too simple...") and that it is always the ones who prefer BW. Just wanted to give them/you a simple name, so that I don't have to explain what I mean exactly with it... I guess I failed.
But nevertheless, I never said anything about BW not being (very) exciting, and I can definatly see why some/lots of people prefer watching BW over SC2 and american football over soccer. I don't. I prefer SC2 and soccer, though I do watch BW VODs and sometimes a superbowl, because there is obviously a lot of beauty in them.
About the reaver: you know why it is not in SC2? because superhigh artillery splash damage, with clumping units and good scarab pathing just makes it nearly impossible to balance this unit. 125damage splash artillery damage in SC2 is plainly too much. A nerfed version with around 80 might still have huge issues, not to mention that reaver drops would be way better than in BW, due to more and clumped workers in mineral lines... the same reason blue flame hellions were nerfed and those have less use overall already.
Also any nerf in damage (the big pluspoint of the reaver in BW), has to lead to redesigns in the way the unit works, or it might not be useful after all. (imagine 50damage reavers with the same speed...)
On January 15 2012 06:42 Falling 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). You make it sound like BW battles was like a nuclear bomb that went off in the first volley with tanks killing everything instantly. I believe it's 4 shots for a zealot and 3 for a dragoon. (edit for correct numbers- thanks Garmer.)
Yes and I never ever said anything that would deny this facts. But as long as you and your other broodwar friends are not answering to the point I'm making time and time again about fungal, I really don't care how much you write about stuff I have never denied.
so once again:
If a unit dies to tankfire there is nothing left to get microed. If it gets fungaled once (and it is not possible to get fungaled more than once at once!), you still have the possibility to save it. Yeah you can't micro the units while they are fungaled. Obviously. But you can micro everything around them to try to save them. And we do see this kind of stuff. Small groups stimming/blinking to snipe a forward infestor and hinder it on fungaling again, FFs to hinder the Infestor fungaling again, scans to reveal the position of the Infestors...
So if you see Fungal growth as a range 9 (=artillery) energy based damage ability (they way it is being used!), it plainly slows down fights compared to instant damage artillery, it is playinly better balanceable with larvamechanic, and it allows for more micro compared to it being instant 35damage.
|
On January 15 2012 19:22 bashalisk wrote:I'm really sorry you took all that time to write this post, because it is eloquent, entertaining and very descriptive. However, you arrive at conclusions most of which are not supported by the current state of the game. I will leave aside the three things you have correctly analysed: the Thor, the Marauder, and the Colossus. Bear in mind, still, that the latter has to be "supported", if you will, by the map. How many maps currently used in 1v1 tournaments have a single cliff in the middle of the battlezone? Yeah, I rest my case. You come to false conclusions because you start from false premises, and as anybody who has taken a course on Propositional Calculus will tell you, if you start from a false hypothesis you can conclude anything. Let's start with this: micro-reducing abilities or mechanics are not general design flaws. Your very first example, Pong, proves this but there are always the people that will make the opposite case (ie. Pong is more fun/exciting/easier with paddles that move instantaneously and at high speed), as we've learned after 40 years of computer gaming. You must also consider your scenarios (“does he hit good forcefields or not?”) outside of a static context. Players will not base their play over such questions, but will extend their logic as follows: "can I bait her into hitting bad force fields? how will I further exploit that? if she hits good force fields, how can I minimize my losses?", and so forth. All the answers to those questions have a profound effect on the outcome of every battle that involves sentries (to stick to the example), as we can clearly see from the thousands of games played already. Secondly, you posit that replacing all chess pieces with pawns amounts to such a mechanic. You are half right, because it has much more fundamental effects. The framework chess is built on is one with differentiated pieces (/units) under the control of two players. By magically making them homogenous, you have reduced chess to checkers. The Starcraft analogous is team monobattles with just one unit (marines) in a perfectly symmetric map; of course they are fun, but can we really say it would be a successful, fun and engaging experience for both casual gaming as well as professional, with a straight face? I think whoever does would clearly be lying. Thirdly, you have roaches. You are correct in the points you are making, but you left out two important details: 1. the roach has an extremely high food cost, a fact that does not go hand-in-hand with the Zerg swarming mentality 2. players are figuring out ways to get out of silly situations arising from mass roach/-ling play I therefore think roaches will eventually reach the point of being a decent tank in small numbers. Their current use does not reflect on their mechanics, only in their synergies with the rest of the Zerg units and as such I think it's only natural that players want to exploit that by massing them. Those strategies will not live on for much longer, though. I will not comment on the perceived lack of zone control units, as I think that's already been covered in other comments, as well as every recent TvX match. The HotS units are also a step in that direction, so yay, I guess. With static defense, you hit the nail on the head. It's a double edged sword, but it's not as hard to balance as you make it seem. I recall a comment by Blizzard developers that essentially said they are working on it but I can't currently find it to provide the link, so take that with a grain of salt. A parting comment; if anybody is serious about analyzing the complex interactions between units, players and game mechanics I'd suggest you start by reading about game theory and following blogs like altdevblogaday, where such concepts are frequently discussed by people involved in the business. Cheers.
I read your entire post and have to say you're bad at criticizing. you've got good writing skills, thats what made me to read it till the end. I will just point out some of your flows:
First.
I will leave aside the three things you have correctly analysed: the Thor, the Marauder, and the Colossus. Bear in mind, still, that the latter has to be "supported", if you will, by the map. How many maps currently used in 1v1 tournaments have a single cliff in the middle of the battlezone? Yeah, I rest my case.
Cliffs never good for colossus. why? because colossus never go alone roaming the map, they always go within death ball. They're already covered by other protoss units, and don't need extra defensive measures (climbing on the cliff). OP got a good point, and you try to beat it saying that modern maps have a lot of cliffs. Nonsense.
Second.
Players will not base their play over such questions, but will extend their logic as follows: "can I bait her into hitting bad force fields? how will I further exploit that? if she hits good force fields, how can I minimize my losses?", and so forth.
So by your logic, players should dance around, play mind games to bait forcefields/emps/stormgs? It doesnt help the fact that battle will end in 5 seconds. The point of OP was to bring back long lasting, action packed crazy battles. Forcefield prevents that, it forces to decide entire game in a single fight, with no option to retreat. You're failing to understand that.
Thirdly.
I therefore think roaches will eventually reach the point of being a decent tank in small numbers. Their current use does not reflect on their mechanics, only in their synergies with the rest of the Zerg units and as such I think it's only natural that players want to exploit that by massing them. Those strategies will not live on for much longer, though.
What makes you think it won't last much longer? You throw out an assumption as a fact.
I will not comment on the perceived lack of zone control units, as I think that's already been covered in other comments, as well as every recent TvX match. The HotS units are also a step in that direction, so yay, I guess. With static defense, you hit the nail on the head. It's a double edged sword, but it's not as hard to balance as you make it seem. I recall a comment by Blizzard developers that essentially said they are working on it but I can't currently find it to provide the link, so take that with a grain of salt.
Weak defender's advantage and lack of zone control are two major problems of sc2 design. And I don't recall blizzard ever addressing it.
Sorry, but I think you're blind fanboy or you have completely different understanding of RTS.
|
On January 14 2012 03:05 TheButtonmen wrote:So Stasis, maelstorm and lockdown just removed units ability to move or attack but didn't restrict your ability to micro.... Makes perfect sense.
I would go out of my way to say that BW would not be worse without these abilities.
Given that we almost never see maelstrom/lockdown lets focus on stasis. A stasised army cannot be killed, it is invincible. It is also very much possible to micro your army, macro like crazy, and save your stasised units before they un-stasis and happens all the time in BW. Stasis requires very careful useage, I've seen entire stasised armies just un-stasis after a while and continue its epic siege march of doom.
Its very difficult and almost impossible to save a forcefielded army. Instead what happens is the enemy either retreats to rebuild his army, or accepts the disadvantage and tries to grind out the battle.
Its very much possible that Stasis will have a positive effect for the enemy if used badly. This is because if you stasis the front, you are basically defense matrixing the entire front line of the Terran army, making it much more effective against Zealots. So now Terran doesn't even need to waste energy on defense matrix and can simply emp the Protoss front line.
However all of these abilities required a ridiculous amount of tech to acquire and had massive contention.
You had to choose between battlecruisers, or ghosts with lockdown. Lockdown required a lot of energy to use, and would only work on one unit = A ridiculous amount of investment and micro.
You had to choose between psi-storm or maelstrom = Psi-storm is twice as good as Maelstrom, so Maelstrom is never used. Maelstrom also didn't do damage, unlike Fungal.
I'm sure Forcefield would not be much of an issue if it was Fleet Beacon tech for 200/200, and Sentries cost 100/350.
|
On January 15 2012 16:22 0neder wrote:
I think if we step back, we'll realize that:
the Colossus, Tempest, Thor, and other low micro/high damage/high supply units
fungal being complete paralysis
similar '2nd' units (marauder, roach, stalker)
combat shield
terran add-on mechanic (near-instantaneous strategic flexibility)
lackluster Terran mech / a fear of widespread AoE one-shotting (EG 1 Colossus can't one shot marines)
a lack of spell animations
missing high-ground mechanic
moving shot micro/spacing engine constraints
macro mechanics (yes, I love them, but we may want to revisit their effect on game volatility and potential for comebacks)
similar army quantities between races (zerg has lost its 1 supply staple unit)
are much bigger hindrances to SC2's full potential in terms of excitement and skill ceiling than FF is.
I agree entirely with these points, these are the things wrong, that make SC2, not epic like BW
|
What about the "micro-reducing" abilities from Brood War? What about Stasis Field and Maelstrom and Plague and Lockdown... Or getting surrounded by zerglings? Man that shit is so unfair!
|
On January 15 2012 20:03 Superdogmot wrote:
What about the "micro-reducing" abilities from Brood War? What about Stasis Field and Maelstrom and Plague and Lockdown... Or getting surrounded by zerglings? Man that shit is so unfair!
Wow, you didn't even read 2 posts above you?
Plague isn't micro reducing, wtf? Go play/watch BroodWar (before you post). 
|
plague? are you kidding?
the others spells came too late in the game and some of them, are also too expensive and not used often, in a competitive game(lockdown and maelstrom)
|
The OP makes me think about blizzard, and i fear that SC:BW was just "lucky" 
I really really miss BW, this game -sc2- has nothing to do with that.
|
On January 15 2012 20:03 Superdogmot wrote:
What about the "micro-reducing" abilities from Brood War? What about Stasis Field and Maelstrom and Plague and Lockdown... Or getting surrounded by zerglings? Man that shit is so unfair!
Most used of these was Stasis, which...
Requires both the air and templar tech tree
Requires it's own building - 200/150
Requires a 150/150 research
Costs 100 energy on 100/350 caster unit, which builds slower than Carriers
Makes units invulnerable
Compare to:
Requires Cybercore
No own building
No research
50 energy on a 50/100 caster
Does not make units invulnerable
Requires multiple casts for a significant effect(unless it's on a ramp, where it has the same effect as Stasis)
Probably the most used of the other three is Ensnare and you rarely see even that.
|
On January 15 2012 16:22 0neder wrote:
I think if we step back, we'll realize that:
the Colossus, Tempest, Thor, and other low micro/high damage/high supply units
fungal being complete paralysis
similar '2nd' units (marauder, roach, stalker)
combat shield
terran add-on mechanic (near-instantaneous strategic flexibility)
lackluster Terran mech / a fear of widespread AoE one-shotting (EG 1 Colossus can't one shot marines)
a lack of spell animations
missing high-ground mechanic
moving shot micro/spacing engine constraints
macro mechanics (yes, I love them, but we may want to revisit their effect on game volatility and potential for comebacks)
similar army quantities between races (zerg has lost its 1 supply staple unit)
are much bigger hindrances to SC2's full potential in terms of excitement and skill ceiling than FF is.
The only hindrance is that some units are too good. Marauder/Marine, Colossus, Roach maybe even medivac.
All other points you mention are false in my opinion. Colossus don't need micro, if your opponent has no answer. But if he has vikings/corruptors or even well placed marauders, then you have to babysit them.
Fungal is just 4 sec paralysis. As always: If you have problems with spellcasters as toss or Terran, it's your lack of micro.
Yes, casters force micro from you, and from the opponent if he wants to escape doom.
These aren't hindrances to SC2, in contrary: If you don't want SC2 to be a macro only game, then you shouldn't hate the units that reward micro.
You might be right about a "missing high-ground mechanic" though..
On January 15 2012 16:22 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 16:16 EternaLLegacy wrote:
FF clearly REDUCES micro available to the opposing player. That's literally the point of the spell. Yes, it is reduced, but it is not eliminated entirely, so it still does more good than harm to the spectating/playing excitement and game dynamics. Contrast this with fungal growth, which completely eliminates movement (BW version made them move very slow, but micro could still be done).
No, FF only reduces micro, if you haven't got the counters to it. As a defending player you have the opportunity to medivac your MM out, as zerg you burrow out.
That's more APM than just give a move command to your base. That's why FF increases the micro.
If you want to see dumbed down SC2, watch roachwars in a ZvZ. That's your SC2 w/o FF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
