While my mechanics article suggested that this part would be about macro-mechanics, due to the direction discussion seems to have been leaning, I have decided to address what seems to be the biggest source of controversy in this part: unit design. I will talk about macro-mechanics in the next part.
I think it's important to talk about unit design from a more abstract perspective before delving into the Starcraft franchise. For the purposes of this discussion, units will be defined as any object under player control which can interact with objects under another player's control. This eliminates interface elements, static map elements, and resources. A unit's purpose is to provide a conduit through which a player can channel his intentions. The skill at which a player executes these intentions reflects mechanical skill. The goals the player chooses reflect strategic skill. As such, units are a direct reflection of the skill of the player, and form a window into his mind. This is important for spectators and opponents alike to make the emotional connection to the player. This is an essential part of any sport or competition – the 'human element' as it were. So, when we talk about unit design, I think it's important to think about units as conduits for the players.
A unit has dimensions of interaction – that is – ways which it can interact. Let me provide a simple example to illustrate this idea: Take the game pong. There is only one unit each player controls, which is the paddle. The ball and playing field are analogous to the map in Starcraft. There are only 2 dimensions of interaction which the units can move. First, is the position of the unit. Each player can choose where to place the paddle at any given time. Second, is the velocity of the paddle. Each player can decide how fast and in which direction he wants to hit the ball.
Clash of the pong titans.
Now, lets remove one of these dimensions of interaction. Lets take away the velocity component to the paddle. You can now only move the paddle at a fixed rate. We can see that this will greatly affect what you can do in terms of angles imparted on the ball, and therefore the amount of unique game states which can exist. In effect, we have reduced the number of conduits between players, because now they have only one conduit, or dimension of interaction, which they are connected through, the position of the paddles.
We can see the same thing happen in chess, if we remove all pieces but pawns. The game becomes a lot less interesting, and while it is still a game of skill, there aren't nearly enough ways to outclass your opponent, and so the game becomes very stale. Any chess players probably have played the 8 pawn game and know it is completely deterministic and solvable, and therefore quite boring. This example illustrates exactly why we like to have multiple different units. Each unit offers a new dimension of interaction in chess, or sometimes even more than one (think: castling). The complexity of interaction is what allows for an interesting game, since there are many conduits connecting the players, and therefore many places where they can outsmart and outplay each other.
What the heck is going on? This is too complicated I'm playing pong.
However, more units does not necessarily mean more conduits. Imagine replacing the queen's rook with a new piece – the juggernaut. The juggernaut can move through any number of pieces, capturing them all if they are enemy pieces. Would this piece increase or decrease the number of conduits available to the players? At first glance, it sounds pretty cool. I mean, think of all the cool play you can make with this piece? However, it turns out that there is no situation where this piece can be properly used, because white would instantly be able to capture black's juggernaut at the start of the game. In fact, it doesn't matter what piece you replace with the juggernaut, because that always will happen. The juggernaut destroys the game of chess, instead of making it more complex and interesting.
I literally cried laughing at this picture.
There are a lot of games that are full of juggernauts. I think command and conquer is notorious for having juggernauts galore in their games. I distinctly remember trying desperately to play C&C: Tiberian Sun like a competitive game a while back. As it turns out, it's really a race to see who can get multi-missiles first and blow up the command center of the other player with a perfectly placed shot. The game is pretty fun if you just play through the single-player and don't take it seriously, but there is some clearly atrocious unit design. Unfortunately, I think that unit design in Starcraft 2 suffers a bit from this syndrome as well.
So, we've established how units provide dimensions of interaction between players, and how good units add dimensions, which bad units destroy them. I think now we have a good framework with which to look at the units of Starcraft 2. While I could go over every single unit, every building, and every spell, I think that the biggest problems would be lost among the sea of information, and so I will try to focus on what I think are the biggest culprits, and the biggest general design flaws.
A) Micro-reducing abilities
I think this is the single most frustrating aspect to unit design in Starcraft 2. We've all experienced it. You set up for a big battle. You engage, and spells get thrown down everywhere. Things aren't looking so good though, and you sound the drums of retreat. Oh, but what's this? Your entire army is immobile. I guess you might as well eat popcorn and watch the spectacle of explosions and gore that once was your army. It's just so absolutely frustrating to know that you can literally do nothing.
Looking at my framework above, we can see that this scenario occurs when the juggernaut shows up and destroys all other dimensions of interaction. So, what's the juggernaut in this scenario?
1) Sentries and Forcefield:
Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. I have to credit Blizzard for making it fit into a game at all. However, the way they implemented it in beta was absolutely game-breaking. Many of you remember the days before massive units crushed forcefields. Many of you remember the days when you could trap units literally inside forcefields so they were unable to do anything. Forcefield was so destructive to the game that Blizzard had to patch in fixes for it. However, part of me thinks that they were only buckling to community complaints and didn't realize exactly what fundamental flaws forcefield had which caused it to be a source for complaint in the first place.
Forcefields cannot be interacted with by the opposing player. All you can do is try to avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy through EMP if you're terran. It comes down to, “does he hit good forcefields or not?” There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. I've seen (and been in) many games where a forcefield on the ramp literally ends the game, because there is literally nothing the other player can do about it. Force stuck outside your main? Well, you lost the game.
Umad zerg?
So what would be appropriate fixes for forcefields? Obviously we don't want them to be useless, especially early on, because protoss HAS to have them to survive some pressure attacks and allins. One suggestion I remember from beta was giving them finite hp, but no target priority (and perhaps giving them high armor would be good too to make them stronger earlier rather than later). I personally like this idea a lot since it forces micro from the other player, but does not auto-win a fight for the casting player. I'm sure there are other options out there as well.
2) Fungal Growth:
Fungal ALL THE THINGS!
Fungal Growth seems to be the favorite of zergs these days, and with good reason. It's pretty much the only spell zerg has that has any meaningful impact on the game (aside from queen macro abilities). It also is a safe spell, because if used properly it automatically ensures that the opponent can do nothing about it. Fungal's damage component alone is very strong, but the stun is absolutely game-breaking. If zerg ever is winning a fight with infestors in his army, the opponent cannot run. There's literally nothing they can do. I consider it to be pretty much a weaker version of forcefield in terms of micro-reducing power. At least infestors don't have any attack and are T2 units, so there's some opportunity cost for utilizing them.
3) Concussive Shells:
At least they don't come standard on marauders now... Concussive shells are not as dramatically micro-reducing as the two previous abilities. However, they do basically ensure that no army can ever disengage without heavy losses, without the use of some other ability, like blink or forcefield. The one redeeming quality for concussive shells is that it requires active scootnshoot micro from the terran. The reliance on APM-heavy micro does create a significant speed/skill barrier that seems to be a large factor in the skill difference between foreign and Korean terrans. It takes a lot of speed to take full advantage of this ability. I think this is a bit of a lesser evil probably because the game has been so heavily balanced around it now, but from a design perspective, it's rather atrocious.
B) Micro-less units:
These guys are part of the reason people whine about the game taking “no skill” or being “too easy.” I'm certainly one to blame at times. But is the complaint legitimate? Looking at the framework, these are units who have only one-dimension of interaction, which is that they exist. Nobody talks about using these units “smarter” or with a different “micro style”. They become a macro-level strategic tool, used to inflict blunt-force trauma on your opponent.
1) The Colossus:
"But Day[9], what if he a-moves?!?!"
I remember seeing the introduction to the colossus by Blizzard, and how they thought of him as a cliff-striding raider, who's mobility was the central feature to the unit. I don't think I've seen anyone even make use of the cliff-striding power of the colossus in months. It's just a big aoe-damage dealing sledgehammer you throw into your ball of doom.
If you look at why this occurs, it's possible to find a few distinct design considerations that contribute: The colossus is a unit that is extremely expensive. This automatically makes it a unit that is a huge risk early on. As such, it rarely appears in a stage of the game where it is the most powerful as a singular unit. The colossus is fairly fragile for its cost. While 350 total hp sounds really beefy, it is armored and damage output of units in Starcraft 2 is simply higher than its predecessor. To compare, that's 10 zerglings of hp, and 10 zerglings costs only 250 minerals. For the price, the colossus is very easily killed. The colossus cannot fight air units at all, but is vulnerable to anti-air.
So what does this mean? Well, the colossus is strongest when it is protected, surrounded by anti-air, and gotten when the cost is not so dramatic that if it dies it's automatic GG. So, you see the midgame mass colossus play.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but we have to look at the actual strength of the unit: Siege range, making static defense worthless and punishing any units that come close. AOE, negating large masses of weaker units Speed, able to keep up with any other protoss unit
This means that the colossus fits a role that no other protoss unit but the carrier does (siege range), has a powerful aoe which is shared by only 2 units (archon/storm on HT), and fits into any protoss army. Contrast that with the carrier, which is stupidly expensive, single target, and slow. Contrast again with high templar, which are slow, have no attack, limited damage output, and no siege capability. Archons are the only unit that seems to compete with colossi, but the lack of range plus a lack of power vs mechanical units makes them still not quite as desirable.
The colossus simply does everything other protoss units are designed to do, but better, and with fewer drawbacks.
As such, the colossus does not need careful attention to make sure it is maximizing its role. The only thing you have to do is keep it alive, and it kills everything with glee. As such, the burden does not rest on the protoss player to use the colossus well, but the opposing player to counter them well. The colossus does not become a conduit for interaction between players, because the interaction around the unit is very one-sided, where the protoss simply makes them and his opponent has to react to the units' very existence. As such, either colossus work or they don't. There's no battle where you go, “man, that guy had such great colossus control. If he played worse there he'd have lost it.”
And of course, colossi can actually lose their attack if they cancel their animation too fast, even though the graphic will play. This means that you're just better off attack-moving and leaving the things alone, cause micro might make them perform worse.
2) The Roach:
What's the counter to roach? More roach.
When the concept for the roach was revealed in alpha, I was very excited. The unit seemed to be the epitome of interesting design. For those of you who didn't know, the roach regenerated hp at an extremely high rate, and as such had very strong attrition power, and was very strong vs non-concentrated fire. Fighting roach required active micro from the opponent to focus down individual roaches, and keeping your roach alive as long as possible and abusing the high regeneration rate to rotate hurt roaches back was especially rewarding. Badly micro'd roach, or badly micro'd units vs roach were both vastly inferior to well micro'd units. This is exactly what makes units interesting.
Then when beta rolled around the roach became just a high hp ranged unit that seemed to require no micro to use. There was no active regeneration until hive tech. It was just a really lackluster unit. Since that time, the active regeneration upgrade simply disappeared, and the burrow and burrow-move mechanics turned out to be insignificant and gimmicky. I'm personally incredibly disappointed in this unit, because Blizzard literally took a great idea and destroyed it.
The roach suffers from a lot of the same issues the colossus does: -Roach outperform hydralisks as a ranged attacker in almost every circumstance, since they are faster, have nearly double the hp, and cost significantly less. -Roach are the only zerg unit before ultralisks that can take any sort of AOE punishment at all.
As such, roach supplant a lot of the zerg army in many circumstances (ZvZ and ZvP especially). We really don't see anything in terms of a balanced force between lings, blings, hydra, and roach with infestor and air support. Instead we just see a lot of roach + support. Now, I am not saying that people only use roach. However, when they DO use roach, they don't just add a few roach to another army. The roach is not a unit that adds any new dimension to an army, it simply supplants already existing units, in the sense that any role the roach is filling in an army can also be filled by another unit that zerg has, but likely worse.
3) The Thor:
This unit just screams “DONT MICRO ME.” It's slow, with slow responsiveness, clunky attack animations, and really poor targeting. There's only one thing you can do with thors which is focus or cannon really large targets. There is no move/shoot with something that clunky and slow. There's no repositioning such a unit in battle.
It seems like even Blizzard is so disgusted with how horribly this unit turned out that they're scrapping it for HotS, and as such I don't want to dwell on it further.
4) The Phoenix:
Those of you in beta should remember when this unit was given its wonderful shoot-while-moving ability. We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here. Move-shoot does not mean a unit that automatically shoots while you move it around. That removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot? It's just a bad mechanic.
C) No Zone Control Units
Not that type of zone.
Lastly, we come to the most glaring weakness in Starcraft 2. There is almost no way to hold ground in this game. There are several contributing mechanics that exacerbate this problem (warpgates, no high ground defender's advantage), but the overwhelming ailment is the complete and utter disregard for positional units that Blizzard seems to have adopted for this game.
But why is this such a weakness, according to our framework? Well, the complexity of interaction between units that exist not to kill other units but to control terrain is far greater than units which exist only to blow things up. Simply, the army-level interaction between move-shoot-kill units is very one dimensional. Units smash into each other and the better force wins. However, area control units are much more interesting, because they turn army interaction into a territory control battle. The goal of territory control units is to cut off important routes and gain more map control.
Map control allows other aspects of the game to take over: Macro, harassment, and scouting. More map control yields more bases open for the taking, more routes by which you can harass, and more vision of the map to combat enemy army movements, expansions, and harassment. When armies exist not to kill each other, but to control terrain, the game shifts more towards those three elements, and less away from “who has the better army?” and big deathball fights. Big deathball fights are one-dimensional army-level interaction, whereas map control is multidimensional.
1) Siege Tanks
Too bad I made immortals.
What happened to these guys? It seems like literally every other unit in the game is designed to counter them. We have dragoons with blink, charging zealots, dragoons with some kind of tankrape cannon that evaporates them like it's their job (oh wait it is), marauders, voidrays, phoenix that can lift them up even when sieged (even though I swear they are clamped to the ground), broodlords which cause them to splash each other, and more.
Tanks are just far more of the glass cannon role than they used to be, and because armies are so much faster and higher dps, the window for getting in position and sieging up is extremely small. This makes them just too much of a liability in many cases, especially vs protoss. The designers simply created too many ways to kill tanks for tanks to hold positions by themselves.
2) Banelings, Burrow, and Detection.
Baneling mines are some of the most enjoyable things to do in Starcraft 2. They can be incredibly cost effective vs marines, and are one of the few map control devices that exist. However, they are gimmicky, since a flub leads to them doing nothing, and they cannot be reused, and as such they don't provide true permanent map control.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit.
The lurker was a purely micro centric unit. It was 100% worthless burrowed in the wrong place, and superbly powerful in the right one. This dichotomy based on position is one of the most essential components of map control-oriented gameplay. The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
The burrow/detection interaction provides a new conduit through which players can interact. Players were scared to move out once lurkers were on the field without great scouting and ready detection, because they could lose their entire army. Even if you move out vs burrow banelings, it's virtually impossible to lose your entire army, because the banes can only kill so many units.
Banelings just can't do that.
What zerg needs is more of an active burrow-based map control mechanism. Fortunately, from the HotS preview, it seems like burrow-banelings will be able to move underground at hive tech. This still is far too late into the game for a detection based map control device. Some way for infestors or roach to be active threats while burrowed would be a major improvement (or moving that proposed baneling upgrade to lair tech) would do wonders for stabilizing zerg map control and making them less reliant on active armies.
3) Static Defense and the Non-Necessity of Siege
Look Ma! No units!
Static defense in Starcraft 2 is extremely weak at actually defending anything. The strength of static defense is supposed to be raw stopping power, in exchange for absolutely no mobility. The idea of static defense is that you sacrifice map control for very cost efficient defense. However, due to the lack of any meaningful map control in Starcraft 2, the opportunity cost for static defense simply isn't very high, and as such, the cost efficiency had to be lowered, to give an incentive to players to make mobile armies and kill each other. That seems to be the direction Blizzard went with in designing this game. There is a huge emphasis on making armies to go kill people, and very little emphasis on actually staying alive.
Naturally, given the weakness of static defense in general, the universal stopping power of defense is much lower than it could be, and that leads to the high level of coinflip losses to allins, because defense is so weak you cannot invest in large amounts of the wrong defense. In addition, since there is little reason to rely on static defense to stay alive, the role of siege units is dramatically reduced, which contributes dramatically to the big deathball army-movement, and one punch victories.
Buffing static defense however has led to stronger cheese (stronger bunkers and stronger cannons, and even spine crawler/queen rushes in beta). This creates a strange situation for us. I think the appropriate response is to make static defense more upgradable, as to avoid the use of strong static defense as cheese early, but without sacrificing stopping power. The planetary fortress is actually a strong example of such defense, and I think it offers a strong incentive towards map control style play, where you don't have to rely on large armies to hold position.
In Conclusion:
Starcraft 2 suffers from unit design that limits meaningful interaction between players. Much of the interaction is one-sided, and as such, the game is less about being the other player than about beating the units themselves. The lack of meaningful map control contributes to a very unstable gameplay, and leads to large-battle centric games. If HotS is to solve these major problems, it needs to implement more micro-able units, which function as distinct and unique conduits with multiple dimensions of interaction between players. Adding more flat units will only further supplant existing units and destabilize the game.
On January 11 2012 03:37 LanZ wrote: A really nice thread you wrote.
As for the 111, you can't blame a build order to make a badly designed unit become good.
OP mentioned nothing about the design of the unit, just the design of the surrounding game. If you're gonna comment on other people's posts, please know what you're talking about.
Edit: Oh, my bad, maybe I worded it differently from what I was thinking, hell I can't even comprehend how I wrote badly designed, I just got riled up when people blame a unit for a build order being what it is. Without actually looking at it from another perspective.
Now that my mind is clear, my point is, it's not the tank that's badly designed, it's more of how easy it gets countered from what the OP says, that's making it look bad in my eyes when compared to the BW counterpart being way stronger. Through the patches, that decreased the tank's usefulness. Just my opinion on it.
BUT I still stand by my point that I don't think the tank is to blame for the 1-1-1 being good.
I find it oddly similar to the modern mech switch in BW TvZ, only it's in the early game for SC2 TvP. It's hard to handle that many marines + a few tanks, and also a banshee disrupting your economy.
Very nice. I like looking at this type of breakdown of the unit types in the game, only I'm curious as to why you would say nobody really uses the cliff powers of the colossus anymore. I feel as if Protoss has gotten a lot better at not doing completely idiotic things with their colossus, but that cliffwalk is quite heartbreaking when they get up that cliff with 4 HP and rain AoE on your lings. Also, roaches might feel like you don't need to micro them, but it's actually still better and burrow movement is not a gimmick when you need to use it to get under FF or when it actually saves your units. Otherwise I really like the thread and agree that zerg who don't actively fight for their map control can't really rely on zone control units, since it's pretty much just broodlords...
Pff alot of these are just disguised balance whines. First of all you don't seem to know that much about gamedesign I'm realising. Complexity is not the holy grail in game design which your article does make it seem to be. Depth while remaining clarity is important. Chess is a great game because it's complex but still relatively easy to understand and thus strategize for, you don't have to know how to win directly for example by simply focussing on winning pieces allowing for people to plan strategies while not being experts. Go on the other hand is by many players especially in more Western societies deemed as too complex because it's very hard to set intermediar goals for the game because the game is more difficult to set subgoals for.
Microless units are needed to create important units, if each unit had many abilities etc it would become too chaotic or complex. The microless units you mention are not poorly designed at all imo in fact many of them have interesting abilities i think. Roach for example may look like a boring vanilla unit but wasn't the hydra in BW as well? Roaches being no AA means there is much more room for air units to play a crucial role in XvZ matchups a great design choice imo. The only poor unit design mentioned in this article here is the colossus, not per se because it's boring in itself but because of the counterunits (viking and corruptor) that there are which invalidate other cool units (battlecruiser and carrier).
In the same vein I don't see units that restrict micro as poor either. In the case of the sentry there is plenty that can be done about it for example, flanking, dropping, burrow, fungal, emp, etc.etc. Losing to it is aggrevating perhaps but that doesn't make the design poor, it's just a hidden balance whine.. Stasis and lockdown where liked abilities as well how are stuff like fungal etc different? If truly nothing could be done about these abilities then it might be problematic but there really is plenty you can do, for example marauder kiting can be solved by forcefields so these 'unfun' mechanics can perfectly solve eachother.
The point about a slight lack of zone control units I agree with but saying siege tanks don't fulfill that role now is silly. The entire TvZ matchup and TvT matchup revolve for a large part about zone and map control because of the siege tank. Saying this doesn't work properly is just silly, breaking siege lines is still very hard. The problem is just that you seem to be comparing the game to BW too much, yes PvT is not the same and the PvT there is now might not as good the BW variant but that doesn't mean the tank is broken.. they just chose an other path for sc2.
All this pretending to be some game design guru while it's just an elaborate balance whine basically is annoying. The conclusion is also just complete bogus.
On January 11 2012 03:37 LanZ wrote: A really nice thread you wrote.
As for the 111, you can't blame a build order to make a badly designed unit become good.
OP mentioned nothing about the design of the unit, just the design of the surrounding game. If you're gonna comment on other people's posts, please know what you're talking about.
I don't see how you can build so much of the thread around the idea that fungal destroys micro, when infestors are one of the most micro-intensive units in the game, both for the zerg player and the opposing player that has to feedback/emp them, snipe them (with small groups of marine/marauder), and split his units properly. It seems to me you just dislike a few units in the game and you decided to create a bogus framework that didn't quite fit, but with enough pictures and text would sound believable.
My only criticism is that you make Blizzard sound totally inept through most of this, and then suggest that they've made a really intelligent choice in weakening static defenses in light of other game mechanics. It's far more likely that they're just muddling through.
The rest of the analysis seems essentially correct, and you made me think about roaches differently than I had before.
Brilliant Thread, I agree with basically 100% of what you wrote wholeheartedly. I have always been opposed to units that prevent micro, as it takes away a lot of skill from the game, and thus the fun of it (IMO). People need to stop discussing balance persay, these are problems with game design, a different subject.
I think your basic idea is pretty good, just like it was in the first part, I just feel like you are shooting way over the top and make things sound a lot worse than they actually are, just like you did with the hole ball shit when it's quiet obvious that spreading out units and using multiple control groups is already starting to become the standard in sc2. Also as an example well microd colossi can do so much more than unmicrod one, kiting is really effective and target firing makes them just so much more effective. Yet I do agree that colossi are just shitty designed, they are just not the "you are better of a moving than microing" units you apparently see in them. Some of the units you picked out are really shitty, with some you are just overdramatizing, looking forward to part 3, even though this seems to turn more and more into "why bw is better than sc2 and I lost faith in blizz".
For the longest time, I've thought, that SC2 will never be as awesome as BW. But cool plays, that I've seen recently have convinced me otherwise. For example the PvP series between MC and JYP @ HSC. I swear, I have never seen such cool PvP in Broodwar. Base race in BW PvP was sooooooooooo rare, and thanks to blink stalkers it seems more common in SC2. I love it.
Then, as a protoss user, I have hated Blizz for giving toss soooo many useless units. In particular I've despised the carrier and the mamaship. But looking at the latest PvZ metagame, it seems that the mothership has its role in the game after all. And damn, it looks cool when zergs bust out their imba unit comp consisting of infs and broods, and it all gets sucked down the toilet and raped.
Sure, I hate roaches and marauders, because they are such massable, tough to kill and cheap a-move units. I also hate the protoss dependence on FFs. I would prefer tougher and faster gate units (esp. zealots, which seem useless in sc2 compared to BW), and sentries w/o FFs, but with guardian shields that can be cast just like storms.
I also agree with your take on FFs, CS and Fungal, I hate them all. But I also love blink stalkers, and to me they are the coolest micro unit in the game, that is 10x better for the gameplay then dragoons ever were.
Would love for Blizz to change the following things in HotS:
- no more shells (early game TvP engagements need to be more back and forth w/ more micro) - replace charge with something controlable. The current ability is just too much a-move. - take out FFs, but make gate units stronger and faster, and make WG a mid game upgrade (twilight council) - make hydras stronger and faster, but reduce DPS - reduce roach HP, but buff regen and DPS slightly - dont remove mamaship, but take out carriers. I also dont think tempest are needed, since more cool anti muta abilities will be added (arch light, recall...)
I'm happy with the new units, which are coming with HotS. More micro and harass for toss = so good!
On January 11 2012 03:54 Omnipresent wrote: This is a nice read.
My only criticism is that you make Blizzard sound totally inept through most of this, and then suggest that they've made a really intelligent choice in weakening static defenses in light of other game mechanics. It's far more likely that they're just muddling through.
The rest of the analysis seems essentially correct, and you made me think about roaches differently than I had before.
Yah, you're probably right, but I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt for once. They get a lot of hate but they actually do have a lot of creative ideas. The problem is they seem to lack that filter that separates out terrible creative ideas from good creative ideas.
I think mirco-reducing abilities is the biggest issue with SC2. I hate FFs especially. Most of the other problems, if they are problems at all, are being improved with the expansions for the most part. I'm pretty confident, but I would love if Blizzard did things about FFs, then I would be pretty happy with the game, at least as far as what's mentioned here.
yup, very nice read, and I agree with just about everything too.
It's true. many of the units such as the roach, collosus etc are one-dimensional units which take away from the strategic aspect of the game.
if only the roach was closer to what it was originally designed for - a tanking unit which regenned HP so quickly that it absolutely forced you to focus-fire it...or it'll just heal to full. With the caveat that it has low dps. I wonder why Blizzard took that idea away and made it much more bland.
Lots of good thinking material here. Many thanks for that.
I can't say I agree with precisely everything you said (more that your perspective is incomplete than being wrong). I would elaborate right now, but you said a whole lot and it's gonna take a bunch to reply properly lool (im busy atm).
I am certainly dissatisfied with one dimensional unit interaction and how map control is almost a non-issue. I'll be sure to come back to these two OPs.
Great thread in general, in parts your pro terran bias comes out though. For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter. Same goes for bio to be honest, stop move micro can look pretty but it's not difficult, in situations splitting can be very good and difficult to pull off but I don't see it much apart from the very best matches. As Artosis said, this is all to do with marauders, they're like mobile tanks.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that tanks are bad vP, I impore you to watch Day9's recent episode on mech versus protoss.
On January 11 2012 04:16 Barrin wrote: Lots of good thinking material here. Many thanks for that.
I can't say I agree with precisely everything you said (more that your perspective is incomplete than being wrong). I would elaborate right now, but you said a whole lot and it's gonna take a bunch to reply properly lool (im busy atm).
I am certainly dissatisfied with one dimensional unit interaction and how map control is almost a non-issue. I'll be sure to come back to these two OPs.
Thank you. I'll be interested to see what more you can add to what I've written. I could've written even more, but honestly my brain was getting fried and I felt it was already getting too long. I look forward to your response.
On January 11 2012 04:16 Scootaloo wrote: Great thread in general, in parts your pro terran bias comes out though. For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter. Same goes for bio to be honest, stop move micro can look pretty but it's not difficult, in situations splitting can be very good and difficult to pull off but I don't see it much apart from the very best matches. As Artosis said, this is all to do with marauders, they're like mobile tanks.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that tanks are bad vP, I impore you to watch Day9's recent episode on mech versus protoss.
I do not have a terran bias at all. I don't even play terran in sc2. Ghosts are powerful, but they are not badly designed, just like high templar are powerful, but not badly designed. If you think they are too powerful, that's a balance issue.
If you believe that marauders are a truly badly designed unit, by all means I'll add them on there. I've bounced back and forth on the case.
Tanks are atrocious vP, and no top terran thinks they're good. Avilo had a very good video blog a while back about how mech is just atrocious vs protoss and there's no possible way to make it work.
Sadly most of your post is mainly true, it does not give definitive answers but Blizzard is not even looking for those, they are happy with current status quo, and most people are too.
Someone posted on reddit patch changes to carrier the supposedly "useless" unit that cant be fixed and done anything with. Yes there was no patches since beta, they gave us a unit they thought from the start is useless (not even trying to experiment on that). Was that for getting more customers ? I mean protoss without carrier would a blasphemy so lets introduce it and pretend its part of competetive game. Its 12 years to late to introduce scout, hell even that unit was patched and was a part of vanilla gameplay (no corsair). I feel sorry for protoss.
Great read, thank you. I always knew that some units just ruin several aspects of the game, but never knew why exactly it is this way. Now i'm smarter .
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.
Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
I think one important thing to note with all of this is the risk of rushing some of these OP units. i.e. I hate sentries, marauders, and roaches because they all show up at full power in the first 6 minutes and continue to dominate throughout, while I loved arbiters, ghost lockdown, and even BW queens that showed up much later in the game, but had very similar influence. You had to take big risks to get these early, and it rewarded risk with these "op" units.
I almost think colo, infestors, and ghosts are balanced by the time investment you need to get them, like the above mentioned from bw. I do think the units that are even later should have MORE potential than these, so we have a clear reason to tech.
Much better than the first. In, as a guy who normally hates these kinda threads (90% are fucking terrible) this was pretty good. I agree with you on quite a bit of this, some of the points you make are good. The colossus is indeed a terrible unit, concussive is bad design straight up. Some of this is true, and all of it is well written. However, it still has the problems that all of these types of articles have. There are statements that you make here that you do not back up at all. You say that static defences are worse, without any statistical or even anecdotal evidence of this, you claim the tank is bad, despite the fact that it is a key unit in 2/3 matchups, there more. This is well done, but it needs more. Also note, since when did Phoenix become a low micro unit? Just because it doesn't require the micro you expect it to, doesn't mean that in the arms of an expert it isn't infinitely more powerful than in the hands of a n00b. I think it was ToD vs Sheth at Dreamhack Winter 2011 where I saw this. The game on Tal'darim displayed truly amazing Phoenix micro, a level above any pheonix play I have seen on any Toss streams. It most certainly is a mircoable unit, what you are saying is absurd. Oh, and as the guy below me pointed, BW had anti micro moves as well, that never seems to be mentioned. I'm not for concussive shell, but I think that properly responded too forcefield provides an interesting dynamic. Watch Select (medivacs picking up and dropping bio behind the forcefields or Stephano (3 control groups (I know, who does that!) of roaches for constant flanks) for how forcefields cause good micro and positioning.
This is practically a term paper subject in and of itself, but I'd like to ask you to comment on the following:
Compare force field and stasis. Stasis is the absolute definition of "prevents any micro" spells, yet is a critical component of PvT strategy. The only argument I can see for stasis on your bases is that it works because it goes "all the way" in that the units can't be microed against either.
My gut reaction is to say that SC2 spells are actually fine in concept... but need to be higher cost with higher damage (either direct damage or forced micro cost), but that's an observation based on watching games only. Essentially my theory is that being able to use spells for area control (cf. swarm, stasis, and the fact that plague, storm, ensnare, EMP have to be dodged) would force mechanics higher, while concentrating cost + damage makes the decision to cast harder and adds strategic considerations. Consider e.g. a higher damage, higher cost fungal with increased radius - we might end with an insta-kill threat forcing marine spreads, but also the Zerg has to pick and choose... which might require unit buffs, idk. I'm speculating here.
I like this thread. It articulates a lot of the reasons why I have very little interest in actively playing 1v1 in SC2. As time passes by, I get increasingly tired of everyone just making a bunch of big armies and smashing them against each other to see who wins. The only matchup where this tends to not be the case is TvZ, which I still enjoy playing from either side. I miss limited unit selection favoring multiple smaller engagements and making mass army control so difficult. I miss tanks being really powerful and worth getting in large numbers. And yes, I have been going back to BW almost exclusively because it's a much better game. Maybe SC2 will have some semblance of that magic that makes BW so good by the time the three expansions have hit and some balance patches have tweaked things out, but for now I'm done with the simplistic, this-is-made-to-counter-that design in SC2.
The ghost is not as much the issue as it's spells, they are almost impossible to dodge and it's counterspell, feedback is so rediculously difficult to pull off due to the tiny size of the ghosts IF they are even visible to your templar. And in the zerg matchup they are simply the counter to all high tier units.
There was a good reason why in BW the Science vessel, a much more vulnerable and expensive unit, had the EMP, and even then, like storm, it had to be researched.
And as far as marauders go, to quote Artosis a bit more, terran should not have the ability to roam the map without any tech/aoe, which is what the hp of marauders allows them to do.
edit: forgot about the tank stuff Making blanket statements like "siege tanks are terrible vs toss because pros say so" mean very little, just look at zergs history with the infestor, I have not seen the specific pos comment you allude to but I think we can all agree that Day9 has a better understanding of th game. Seriously, go watch it, he does it with examples of pro games.
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Nice, I appreciate the read. I pretty much agree with everything mentioned, though I think tanks deserve their counterability given their really, really, really intelligent targeting in SC2. I wonder if Blizzard would ever reconsider some of the more obvious things you mention, such as force fields, fungal, roaches, and collosi? Not that they're OP or something, but that they're just... uninteresting aspects of the game. The entire thing would need to be redesigned, which makes me wonder if it really is just about making SC2 more like BW, which many wouldn't want
I agree with many points and disagree with many points as well.
A: On micro reducing units, you look at the micro only after the spells are cast, in order to avoid such spells (some of which are broken in the hands of a good player) better micro/unit positioning is needed. I could easily say lockdown makes the game microless because units cannot move for extended periods of time (granted its not AOE but with enough ghosts, one can nullify half of the opponenets army). I think a more correct title would be units that reduce your opponents options if the spell/effect is successful.
Sentries: I agree with your point on forcefields being necessary but needing hp. One of the new strange protoss spellcasters can make barriers around minerals that have hp. A similar concept would be good for forcefields. But forcefields clearly require micro, mechanics, and skill to use that can distinguish good players from bad players. A video of destiny raging at his student for bad forcefields and a video of MC doing godly forcefields against ghost emps (that outrange forcefields) comes to mind.
Fungal growth is in my opinion overpowered for the stunning and aoe damage. Blizzard recognized this and nerfed it throughout its patches which is a good thing. It is still a bit cheap but it is getting closer to balanced in my opinion. But the thing is, not everyone is using the abillity to its fullest extent (i think ghosts also fall into this catagory). These are units that if used correctly are IMBA, but players aren't good enough at mechanics to pull it off. However, if we introduce the cloud abillity from the viper in HOTS, as mentioned in other threads, it is going to be completely imbalanced. Either take away stun, or take away cloud. Simple as that.
Concussive shells i don't think are bad or have a overwhelming advantage and impact on micro. It only really shows when there are small engagements, but i noticed in large engagements, the mauraders tend to focus on 1-3 slow units while the rest of the army escapes. If it bothers you that much, perhaps make the upgrade require a factory like nitro packs?
B: I disagree with the fact that there are units that require no micro. Some units we have not seen great micro from, but as stated before, people are BAD.
Colossi potential has not been reached yet. The cliff abillity is used more as a defensive keep your unit alive technique. But the problem on the offense is that colossi are lategame, and lategame, there are many units so if you try to skip cliffs between two bases, the enemy will just send like 20 roachs to each side to destroy it. Or bring 10 mutalisks/corrupters/vikings to demolish it. With more mechanical players, i think colossi potential will be drawn out. Remember warp prisim colossi play? You say to day 9 what if he a moves? Well doesn't matter, i'll bring mauraders, roachs, stalkers, you name it. Colossi are units that bring great rewards when microed. If you don't micro colossi, or your stalkers correctly, they all die to experienced players very quickly.
When I saw the roach preview, i don't know what you saw, but all i saw was IMBA. How can an armored unit with high hp and passive regeneration be balanced at all? The first roach was 1 supply, 2 armor, passive regeneration above ground. That is quite frankly ridiculous and I am glad they nerfed it. I fail to see how roachs though, are different from any generic footsoldier, they can be microed to kite, focusfire, and/or flank. I fail to see why roachs are microless units.
Thor i completely agree with. When i first saw it, i thought it had natural small splash damage, and good antiair with a kick ass casual abillity. Then i found out it had no splash. No big deal, its abillity is cool. Well abillity has no splash either and takes time to use. No biggie, it can be used against mass mutas in zergling muta play! Magic box was invented. Then I gave up. Thors are too slow to micro effectively and are good in mech play in that they are strong, but the potential it had was snuffed.
Phoenix, i can see why you would think micro is decreased with move attack, but phoenix is mainly used for gravitation beam or in large flocks. They are rather fragile too, and positioning and moving phoenixes correctly can be beautiful. Still, I agree that move attack is not necessary but I don't think it damages the game as much.
C: No zone control units: Not much to say besides zone control units still exist but it is more emphasized on armies controlling territory rather than one unit.
Seige tanks: Oh no immortals. Too bad I have marines that are supper effective against immortals, and stalkers when outnumbering them (and when do they not outnumber them). Zealots? Oh wait, I have seige tanks. Colossi? Build vikings. Seige tank likes are still ridiculously hard to break with protoss when food is equal without taking large losses. Tanks or any unit should not be able to hold positions by themselves, I don't see why you would want that. Terran wants to defend? leave a few seige tanks at home and send your entire army out. No biggie.
I fail to see why banelings cannot be used as map control. The fact that if they fail, they are useless separates players who know the maps and make good decisions from those who are retarded. They are not used commonly enough though, that players don't worry about them and don't have a raven, observer, or overseer with them. If good players frequently use them, then detection will be brought. But the thing is detection is actually brought the most against zerg. I will get into that later. But your post seems off point. You talk about map control, but start reminiscing on how beautiful the microable lurker was. banelings can be good map control, just give it time. Burrowed MOVING banelings however, are completely broken in my eyes. While the lurker does not explode, it does not have the sheer damage and AOE that banelings do. 10 banelings can decimate a terran bio army and if you can position burrowed banelings... oh lord. Lets just say if HOTS stays the same, you will see almost all zerg matchups being infestor/viper/ling/bling.
I would just like to mention here one of the best zone control things in zerg, creep tumors and overlords. Creep is one of the best area controlling things in the entire game. They provide vision, movement boost, and forces opponenets to go around and kill the cloaked tumors if they wish to nullify that advantage. Overlords can creep harass naturals so that the zerg know when an expansion is probably going to be and delay the expansion itself.
Static defenses are more potent then you know. 10 mutlisks can usually destroy a couple turrents and harass. But many pro players don't. why? Because of cost efficiency. A turret is cheap and gasless. Lategame, one can spam them. Bunkers are salvagable and cheap as well. Zerg towers can move. Protoss canons can be built with a pylon. Static defenses while perhaps not as strong, still provide great map control due to mobillity and cost. Sure three spine crawlers are nothing. But what about 10? What about 20? What if they are pushing closer due to creep spread and the army supporting it? Same can be said of all other defensive structures.
100% agree. compare colossus and reaver. or siege tank and marauder. or lurker/roach. standard units need to become more micro intensive to increase the skillcap of sc2.
There are some great points in this thread, but I think the tone of it is maybe a little too "StarCraft II is bad" oriented. I know you're not saying that, it simply feels like it.
StarCraft II is a really good game that isn't quite as complex and perhaps developed as Brood War was. I'm not worried about it as a game for two reasons:
1. We have two expansions to go before it's finished. The game can and will change in that time, a lot. We should wait and see.
2. StarCraft II still leaves a lot of room for micro in less flashy and more subtle ways. Lemme give you an example: I was watching a Zerg player stream a ZvZ (I can't remember who it was... someone extremely good, they were Korean as I recall) and they got themselves into a seriously nasty situation in the early game, contained on one base and at one point reduced to only six drones due to banelings. Extremely good decision making, spine crawler placement, and conservation of units allowed him to rebuild. Eventually, the game went to roach/infestor vs. roach/infestor, but this player was still behind. A battle occurred when his opponent attacked him at his third, and the streamer had a significantly smaller army.
Now, if roaches and fungal growth were so strongly anti-micro, then this battle would've ended in the favor of the guy with the large army and that would be that. Instead, the streamer positioned his roaches in an arch, leaving small holes for his infestors to get through, and at the perfect moment, he tossed a few infested Terrans at the perfect spot behind his opponent's wall of roaches; the eggs blocked the maneuvering of and eventually forced the relocation of his opponent's infestors, thereby not allowing them to ever get in range for fungals while the streamer's fungals landed easily, swinging the battle strongly into his favor and by the end of the fight putting him solidly again.
Had he not micro'd his infestors versus his opponent's so skillfully, he would've lost. It took a mindful eye to catch this subtle micro, but it was there, it was difficult, and it was important. I think SC2 is doing just fine.
The OP suggests that there are particular game-design laws that make certain units and abilities inherently wrong regardless of their implentation. This is a mild exaggeration and typically ignores the intent of each unit design. So let's break it down one by one.
Forcefield: The current iteration of forcefield does have a negative effect on unit control, however, this can be seen, not as a problem with instantaneous creation of invincible and impassable terrain, but more to do with the fact opposing players have difficulty countering it. Once your units are trapped forcefield denies micro, however, that doesn't mean a player cannot micro against it by simply avoiding the effective range of forcefield. I wouldn't be surprised if positive gameplay interactions could be developed simply increasing the risk (slower movement speed on sentries?) or reducing the effective area of influence of the sentry (shorter cast range?). -OP's comments on forcefield feel biased, but the OP does not suggest scrapping FF so I give him credit. OP's statement that sentries deny interaction is false since "avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy" is an interaction.
Fungal Growth: If ever there was a law about denying movement, than fungal growth would certainly be breaking it. However, any assessment about a lack of interaction is false. It does deny micro (and doesn't really add much) so compared to forcefield it's far more difficult to create healthy gameplay around. However, as a tool designed to counter certain interactions it can be viewed as healthy. This spell has a bit of an identity crisis, does it hinder harass? nuke marines? or trap small groups of out of position units? It's probably overpowered if it can fill too many roles, however just like FF it's not inherently bad game design, it's just harder to design around.
Concussive Shells: OP's assessment is generally positive, OP generally displays bias against abilities that capitilize on player mistakes. Concussive shells do force opponents to think critically about their engagements. Micro-less units:
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
The Roach: The roach is a vanilla unit like any other, the only problem then that can be found is a lack of units which interact positively with the unit. Either the units that support it are ineffective, or the units that counter it dynamically do not exist. This could suggest either changing the stats of the roach, or creating more ways to interact with the roach (by adding or changing units, by changing defenders advantage etc.)
The Thor: Currently being removed, however, the concept of a slow moving unit that controls specific zones (much like the siege tank) is not in itself inherently flawed, Blizzard simply deemed the thor ineffective at fulfilling the anti-air role it was intended for.
The Pheonix: Suggesting this unit requires no micro is laughable. Shoot and move is shoot and move, you may be able add more actions, but what really matters is the attention paid towards the unit, and to micro this unit effectively full attention is still required.
The Siege Tank: Yes the tank has problems in TvP, however it's actively important in TvT and TvZ. I would agree that with the role shift of the immortal as hp tank to a damage dealer would suggest removing hardened shield, since it has no effect on most relevant units with the exception of perhaps the roach.
Question: Is there something wrong with units that can only be used in specific match-ups? I'd say 2 out of 3 is not bad.
2) Banelings, Burrow, and Detection: OP's opinions on this are preference based. Suggesting what zerg needs is an abract argument. I'd agree that burrow is an interesting mechanic. Blizzard also agrees and has put quite a bit of effort in designing units with burrow in mind. Creep spread actually turned out to be an effective way to force detection. As it stands, I imagine the reason lurkers aren't in SC2 is largely the same issues as the siegetank. They were just too fragile or ineffective.
Static Defense and the Non-Necessity of Siege: Static defence seems like one of the harder design elements to get right. Blizzard has to weigh the power of harassment, the power of cheese, the ability to turtle and the ability to control the map, when designing static defence. Too strong static defence makes turtling for too long, too easy; it makes harassment impossible; it makes cheesing too strong OR it denies any form of dynamic early game; and it allows for map control to easily gained (sort of like when zerg go mass spine crawler after they hit 200/200).
Scaling static defence is a reasonable response, and i'd agree that Blizzard hasn't quite hit the nail of static defence. However, you cannot immediately rule out using units defensively as a viable gameplay mechanic. Thors or sentries or siegetanks or infestors etc. could all be seen as fulfilling the roles of static defence.
In conclusion:
The OP's assessment that SC2 if balanced too heavily around denying interactions is not entirely accurate. SC2 units, more often than not, are designed to create and encourage interactions, some of them may have missed the mark, while some of them are probably not as bad as you'd think. Furthermore, judging by the units Blizzard presented in the HotS preview, it appears Blizzard largely has identified many of the same weaknesses the OP suggests (which kind of makes his entire post pointless).
The largest issue with OP is his belief that many of his assumptions are slightly off the mark. He assumes forcefield is bad because it denies interactions, when in fact it creates interactions and enables different strategies and counter strategies. While many of the OP's assumptions are very close to being accurate, they seem to ride on the idea there are inherent game design laws that Blizzard is breaking, when in fact these game design ideas might actually be very good for the game, if their execution could be properly balanced and they matched the intended role they were designed for.
I will say in general that my (subjective) feeling is that Starcraft 2 is more of an army game than a base game. That is to say, it's essentially about who can have the strongest army, complete with upgrades, synergy and spell casters. I think the focus in Brood War was different, and to me that made it have a different feel.
Something that's nice about Starcraft 2 are the attention to base mechanics. Queens, overlords, creep tumors, tech labs, supply depots, pylons all have some attractive features, not to mention more interactive aspects like wall-offs and missile turret placement. I think it would be nice if Blizzard expanded on this just a little and added some more features. We're all so excited about the new units in HotS, when we should also be excited about new base features and upgrades, in my opinion. I think a good example of something that has potential to interact with bases in a fun way is the Oracle's contaminate+ ability. As a zerg player you can outright lose if you can't be able to produce zerglings/roaches at a critical moment, so perhaps zerg wants to safeguard their production by creating duplicate tech buildings. Then protoss can build more oracles, use observers to scout for duplicates, and so on. It gives more importance to scouting and base management, which gives the game a lot of depth in my opinion. It's an entirely new dimension of gameplay compared to just units fighting each other after all.
The second lacking thing is map control, which they seem determined to address in HotS, which is nice. Micro seems to be the focus of the OP, and that's yet another issue. I think he's wrong on basically all his examples - at least the way he described them, but at the same time it's true that micro is not too important in this game and is often either pointless or made impossible by certain abilities. (forcefields on ramps are so obnoxious and shouldn't be in the game). I've sometimes wondered whether Blizzard made this game with something like a 250ms standard response latency in mind, as I think they used to have it that high at the start for battle.net. A lot of units certainly feel slightly unresponsive and I think it's often their stats that make them just slightly hard to micro. You can't really dodge air attacks with a viking too well, but what if it was just a bit easier because Blizzard tweaked the stats a small amount? Or how about turning rates, acceleration and animation speeds for some units? I think it'd be nice if Blizzard made a pass on all units to see if they could find ways to make them a bit more responsive in such ways.
Insightful post, I can't help but agree. On a side note (and this is coming from a protoss fan), potentially, the forcefield is the most gamebreaking mechanic in sc2.
I can't help but cheer whenever I see a good player destroy the opponent's army with well-placed FFs... but in all honesty a STRATEGY game should let a player the chance to do something about his opponent's moves.
On January 11 2012 04:57 MCDayC wrote: Much better than the first. In, as a guy who normally hates these kinda threads (90% are fucking terrible) this was pretty good. I agree with you on quite a bit of this, some of the points you make are good. The colossus is indeed a terrible unit, concussive is bad design straight up. Some of this is true, and all of it is well written. However, it still has the problems that all of these types of articles have. There are statements that you make here that you do not back up at all. You say that static defences are worse, without any statistical or even anecdotal evidence of this, you claim the tank is bad, despite the fact that it is a key unit in 2/3 matchups, there more. This is well done, but it needs more. Also note, since when did Phoenix become a low micro unit? Just because it doesn't require the micro you expect it to, doesn't mean that in the arms of an expert it isn't infinitely more powerful than in the hands of a n00b. I think it was ToD vs Sheth at Dreamhack Winter 2011 where I saw this. The game on Tal'darim displayed truly amazing Phoenix micro, a level above any pheonix play I have seen on any Toss streams. It most certainly is a mircoable unit, what you are saying is absurd. Oh, and as the guy below me pointed, BW had anti micro moves as well, that never seems to be mentioned. I'm not for concussive shell, but I think that properly responded too forcefield provides an interesting dynamic. Watch Select (medivacs picking up and dropping bio behind the forcefields or Stephano (3 control groups (I know, who does that!) of roaches for constant flanks) for how forcefields cause good micro and positioning.
Sunken colonies were much stronger than spine crawlers are, both because marines only took 2 shots instead of 3, and the higher dps of marines in this game, and the existence of marauders. Cannons fired faster in BW, though they did get a major hp buff in beta (50% more total hp!). No spider mines for terran is certainly a glaring weakness (I certainly think they're static defense).
In general, unit dps is much higher, and units are tougher. The stopping power of static D is much weaker relative to the power of the units in the game than in BW.
As for stasis, since I see multiple people commenting on it: Stasis, for one, was really hard to aim properly, was extremely high tech, and extremely costly. You couldn't micro against it, but you also were completely safe from enemy fire as well. It's a strange mechanic that could help and hurt depending on how it was used. Lastly, I'm pretty surs stasis had friendly fire as well.
Nice write-up; though I disagree about a few things [everything]. I think the micro limiting units are very interesting and have added a lot to pre-battle positioning. Where you engage a battle is extremely important and a lot of that is due to these units that limit your ability to retreat. These units also can help cover retreats.
Forecfields have led to the mmm ladder maneuvering which is quite technical and awesome. Fungals have led to more splitting of units, which gives TvZ a nice more sprawling giant battle feel to it.
And the phoenixes are crazy micro intensive. Your write-up sounds like something that people feared from the beta, not like someone who has spent time using phoenixes. Collossi require micro; perhaps at levels of play where people only 1a they are stronger at 1a than other armies... but they are rather expensive glass cannons that require plenty of support.
Also your complaints sound a lot like balance whining. Siege tanks suck, protoss units are so good. Fungal growth is dumb, roaches take no micro.
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
On January 11 2012 04:16 Scootaloo wrote: For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter.
I'm sorry but this is 100% wrong. You are arguing that the ghost doesn't require much micro? Name a single unit in SC2 that actually requires more micro than the ghost to be used effectively? Using mass snipes is quite possibly one of the most micro-intensive actions in the game and casting EMP requires micro too. I really don't see your point, especially not the claim that ghosts aren't micro intensive. Question, have you ever used mass ghosts before?
You also claim later that bio is not micro-intensive. Well, again. You are extremely wrong. Stutter-stepping is not hard to do, I give you that, but it's extremely time-consuming and very micro-intense. It's not always about the difficulty, but about the intensity and bio micro is quite intense, because it can take ages, especially against chargelots (which by the way only have to be a-moved, so if you want to complain about no-micro, why not complain about the unit that actually takes no micro, but complain about the units that have to be microed - doesnt really make sense)
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
actually if you micro the collosus its splash increases.
Not exact numbers but you get the idea EX: target a marine= the splash width is 1 EX: target a maruader= splash width is 2
The OP wrote a well-articulated post with lots of arguments of why SC2 is a worse RTS game than BroodWar and now a bunch of guys just counter with "your complaints sound a lot like balance whining". Where in his post does the OP complain about balance? Do you guys have any reading comprehension? Why doesn't anyone write about how SC2 is a deeper and better RTS game than BW? I would really like to see something like that used as a reply.
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
actually if you micro the collosus its splash increases.
Not exact numbers but you get the idea EX: target a marine= the splash width is 1 EX: target a maruader= splash width is 2
The marines die so fast and deal so much dps it is hardly worth it. And it requires no micro because its' damage is linear and the units auto-arrange in a line when shooting.
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
actually if you micro the collosus its splash increases.
Not exact numbers but you get the idea EX: target a marine= the splash width is 1 EX: target a maruader= splash width is 2
Focus-firing is standard with pretty much every unit, but since focus fire can be shift-queued it doesn't really classifiy is micro intense, you could basically say the same about every unit, even the thor, it's also better to focus fire with thors, but it's kind of obvious that focus-firing is not intense micro.
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
actually if you micro the collosus its splash increases.
Not exact numbers but you get the idea EX: target a marine= the splash width is 1 EX: target a maruader= splash width is 2
Focus-firing is standard with pretty much every unit, but since focus fire can be shift-queued it doesn't really classifiy is micro intense, you could basically say the same about every unit, even the thor, it's also better to focus fire with thors, but it's kind of obvious that focus-firing is not intense micro.
the point is that if you target a maruader with a collosus you can hit two rows of marines as well where as if you target a marine you will not hit a second row of marines...
I agree that protoss is designed poorly but not everything is problematic.
The OP is not saying this at all...
OP says
Warpgate: removes defenders advantage Sentries: forcefields are too strong Pheonix: no micro Voidray: 1 a Carrier: negated by collosus Collosus: 1 a massive splash Stalker: blink > siege Zealot: charge> siege Immortal > siege
by that logic, every marine thread is saying every other unit in the game is problematic because
everything else: countered by marines.
He's not saying all of those things are bad, for example, he was talking about siege tanks when he mentioned immortals, but it was still a statement about tanks, not immortals, ditto with carriers, stalker, zealot.
On January 11 2012 04:57 MCDayC wrote: Much better than the first. In, as a guy who normally hates these kinda threads (90% are fucking terrible) this was pretty good. I agree with you on quite a bit of this, some of the points you make are good. The colossus is indeed a terrible unit, concussive is bad design straight up. Some of this is true, and all of it is well written. However, it still has the problems that all of these types of articles have. There are statements that you make here that you do not back up at all. You say that static defences are worse, without any statistical or even anecdotal evidence of this, you claim the tank is bad, despite the fact that it is a key unit in 2/3 matchups, there more. This is well done, but it needs more. Also note, since when did Phoenix become a low micro unit? Just because it doesn't require the micro you expect it to, doesn't mean that in the arms of an expert it isn't infinitely more powerful than in the hands of a n00b. I think it was ToD vs Sheth at Dreamhack Winter 2011 where I saw this. The game on Tal'darim displayed truly amazing Phoenix micro, a level above any pheonix play I have seen on any Toss streams. It most certainly is a mircoable unit, what you are saying is absurd. Oh, and as the guy below me pointed, BW had anti micro moves as well, that never seems to be mentioned. I'm not for concussive shell, but I think that properly responded too forcefield provides an interesting dynamic. Watch Select (medivacs picking up and dropping bio behind the forcefields or Stephano (3 control groups (I know, who does that!) of roaches for constant flanks) for how forcefields cause good micro and positioning.
Sunken colonies were much stronger than spine crawlers are, both because marines only took 2 shots instead of 3, and the higher dps of marines in this game, and the existence of marauders. Cannons fired faster in BW, though they did get a major hp buff in beta (50% more total hp!). No spider mines for terran is certainly a glaring weakness (I certainly think they're static defense).
In general, unit dps is much higher, and units are tougher. The stopping power of static D is much weaker relative to the power of the units in the game than in BW.
As for stasis, since I see multiple people commenting on it: Stasis, for one, was really hard to aim properly, was extremely high tech, and extremely costly. You couldn't micro against it, but you also were completely safe from enemy fire as well. It's a strange mechanic that could help and hurt depending on how it was used. Lastly, I'm pretty surs stasis had friendly fire as well.
See, what you said about static d was backed up by fact, and therefore the debate actually becomes more interesting. In the case of Zerd static D, I would still disagree, as they have the ability to move the building, which more than the buildings being slightly weaker. I would still like to hear a clarification as to why Phoenix is an anti/bad micro unit. I honestly can't think of a reason why.
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
actually if you micro the collosus its splash increases.
Not exact numbers but you get the idea EX: target a marine= the splash width is 1 EX: target a maruader= splash width is 2
Focus-firing is standard with pretty much every unit, but since focus fire can be shift-queued it doesn't really classifiy is micro intense, you could basically say the same about every unit, even the thor, it's also better to focus fire with thors, but it's kind of obvious that focus-firing is not intense micro.
the point is that if you target a maruader with a collosus you can hit two rows of marines as well where as if you target a marine you will not hit a second row of marines...
But that doesn't mean it's micro-intense, it's just focus firing, something every unit benefits from (the collossus maybe to a greater extent, but once you have 4+ collossi focus firing gets pretty redundant because the splash damage will be dealt anyway and at least it doesnt overlap then).
The OP suggests that there are particular game-design laws that make certain units and abilities inherently wrong regardless of their implentation. This is a mild exaggeration and typically ignores the intent of each unit design. So let's break it down one by one.
Forcefield: The current iteration of forcefield does have a negative effect on unit control, however, this can be seen, not as a problem with instantaneous creation of invincible and impassable terrain, but more to do with the fact opposing players have difficulty countering it. Once your units are trapped forcefield denies micro, however, that doesn't mean a player cannot micro against it by simply avoiding the effective range of forcefield. I wouldn't be surprised if positive gameplay interactions could be developed simply increasing the risk (slower movement speed on sentries?) or reducing the effective area of influence of the sentry (shorter cast range?). -OP's comments on forcefield feel biased, but the OP does not suggest scrapping FF so I give him credit. OP's statement that sentries deny interaction is false since "avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy" is an interaction.
Fungal Growth: If ever there was a law about denying movement, than fungal growth would certainly be breaking it. However, any assessment about a lack of interaction is false. It does deny micro (and doesn't really add much) so compared to forcefield it's far more difficult to create healthy gameplay around. However, as a tool designed to counter certain interactions it can be viewed as healthy. This spell has a bit of an identity crisis, does it hinder harass? nuke marines? or trap small groups of out of position units? It's probably overpowered if it can fill too many roles, however just like FF it's not inherently bad game design, it's just harder to design around.
Concussive Shells: OP's assessment is generally positive, OP generally displays bias against abilities that capitilize on player mistakes. Concussive shells do force opponents to think critically about their engagements. Micro-less units:
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
The Roach: The roach is a vanilla unit like any other, the only problem then that can be found is a lack of units which interact positively with the unit. Either the units that support it are ineffective, or the units that counter it dynamically do not exist. This could suggest either changing the stats of the roach, or creating more ways to interact with the roach (by adding or changing units, by changing defenders advantage etc.)
The Thor: Currently being removed, however, the concept of a slow moving unit that controls specific zones (much like the siege tank) is not in itself inherently flawed, Blizzard simply deemed the thor ineffective at fulfilling the anti-air role it was intended for.
The Pheonix: Suggesting this unit requires no micro is laughable. Shoot and move is shoot and move, you may be able add more actions, but what really matters is the attention paid towards the unit, and to micro this unit effectively full attention is still required.
The Siege Tank: Yes the tank has problems in TvP, however it's actively important in TvT and TvZ. I would agree that with the role shift of the immortal as hp tank to a damage dealer would suggest removing hardened shield, since it has no effect on most relevant units with the exception of perhaps the roach.
Question: Is there something wrong with units that can only be used in specific match-ups? I'd say 2 out of 3 is not bad.
2) Banelings, Burrow, and Detection: OP's opinions on this are preference based. Suggesting what zerg needs is an abract argument. I'd agree that burrow is an interesting mechanic. Blizzard also agrees and has put quite a bit of effort in designing units with burrow in mind. Creep spread actually turned out to be an effective way to force detection. As it stands, I imagine the reason lurkers aren't in SC2 is largely the same issues as the siegetank. They were just too fragile or ineffective.
Static Defense and the Non-Necessity of Siege: Static defence seems like one of the harder design elements to get right. Blizzard has to weigh the power of harassment, the power of cheese, the ability to turtle and the ability to control the map, when designing static defence. Too strong static defence makes turtling for too long, too easy; it makes harassment impossible; it makes cheesing too strong OR it denies any form of dynamic early game; and it allows for map control to easily gained (sort of like when zerg go mass spine crawler after they hit 200/200).
Scaling static defence is a reasonable response, and i'd agree that Blizzard hasn't quite hit the nail of static defence. However, you cannot immediately rule out using units defensively as a viable gameplay mechanic. Thors or sentries or siegetanks or infestors etc. could all be seen as fulfilling the roles of static defence.
In conclusion:
The OP's assessment that SC2 if balanced too heavily around denying interactions is not entirely accurate. SC2 units, more often than not, are designed to create and encourage interactions, some of them may have missed the mark, while some of them are probably not as bad as you'd think. Furthermore, judging by the units Blizzard presented in the HotS preview, it appears Blizzard largely has identified many of the same weaknesses the OP suggests (which kind of makes his entire post pointless).
The largest issue with OP is his belief that many of his assumptions are slightly off the mark. He assumes forcefield is bad because it denies interactions, when in fact it creates interactions and enables different strategies and counter strategies. While many of the OP's assumptions are very close to being accurate, they seem to ride on the idea there are inherent game design laws that Blizzard is breaking, when in fact these game design ideas might actually be very good for the game, if their execution could be properly balanced and they matched the intended role they were designed for.
sounds like your kinda arguing with yourself and having trouble understanding the OP at the same time
this is a very well written article and I agree with both part one and part 2
I agree with a lot of this, however the BW/SC2 comparisons without pointing out the same unit "flaws" in Broodwar. *cough* stasis *cough* gets annoying after a while. With that being said, I think there is a lot Blizzard could improve on in both games. These were my thoughts on most of it:
As for the colossus - not 100%. You can micro them back, target the corruptors/whatever are hitting them, target key units with them, etc. They are definitely micro-able and it makes a decent difference, it's just that they're still strong even when A-moved, which wasn't the case for something like the rivu. I'd agree that they should become more of a "seige unit" as they're kind of a walking seige tank right now, but I don't agree that they're completely A-move. With that being said I'd definitely prefer something like the reaver instead of the colossus, although I highly doubt it'll happen, as improved reaver AI would be really hard to balance.
As for tanks - What? Yes, they've lost their role vs. Toss, but not so much because tanks are bad. It's because they lack the support of goliaths/vults - I'm quite sure that if you gave me spider mines I could make mech standard vs. Toss again. And you also mention that they are "countered" by Broodlords yet fail to mention that queens in BW do the same thing, but 10x better. There is a reason why you see them in basically every high level ZvT. The tank is honestly what Blizzard should be looking at for its game design - dynamic, interesting, much better with good control, encourages macro games and space control, etc. It's the reason TvT is often macro oriented (and interesting to watch) as well as back and forth.
Roaches - Roaches are quite a boring unit, I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly (although so were Hydras in BW) but saying that roach burrow movement is gimmicky and/or useless is just wrong - it's extremely helpful in the midgame as a way to fight against FFs. This is more a problem with FF than anything, but it's definitely still not useless.
Banelings - Burrowed banelings aren't a space control unit and were never intended to be, so I don't think you should have really brought them up. Zerg lacks a space controlling unit because Blizzard never gave them one, not because Blizzard fucked up and gave Zerg a shitty space controlling unit.
And of course, I disagree with the whole "phoenixes don't require micro" part, because they do. I don't even see how you can argue otherwise. It's not sair level micro, but phoenixes are still 5x better in the hands of a good player than a bad player, which is what we want.
I agree with your statements on FF, FG, and CS though, they definitely need to be fixed in some way. That and making stalker more like dragoons (not having to turn around to shoot) would be a really nice addition, even if they had to tweak some other things to make it work. FF would be really interesting if you could attack them to break them, FG should be buffed a good deal and turned into a projectile, I'm not really sure what Blizzard can do to "fix" CS though.
As for general unit micro - a lot of that is caused by sc2's better AI. Broodwar's rather clunky unit pathing made micro much more difficult and much more mandatory, which is why it is hard for Blizzard to implement units like the BW Dragoon or Muta, as they would be far too good with sc2's improved unit pathing. Spells without smart casting are much stronger, which means that an SC2 queen (as in the queen from BW ported to sc2) would be beyond ridiculous.I hope they figure out a way around this, but I don't see how they could do it.
Finally, a lot of these things (space controlling unit for Zerg, changes to roach, banelings being a threat while burrowed, more support for tanks in HotS hopefully making mech vs. P standard, changes to the thor, etc.) have been touched upon by Blizzard, so I think they've got a general idea of a lot of the flaws in the current game, so I'm hoping they can fix them.
I'm pretty sure the reason Zerg don't have a space-control unit is because their units are generally much faster and mobile than their terran and protoss counterparts and they also have creep to see pushes coming from miles away. I think a siege unit for Zerg would be too good, because they already have the speed advantage in most cases, there most be a drawback, having the fastest units and a siege tank-like unit would be broken imo. Just my 2 cents @Skwid1g
Good read. Not that I am qualified to discuss this stuff, but after watching a bit of broodwar I really miss the whole zoning of the map. (I am not a broodwar elitist, I just have sense)
complaining about interaction using force field and fungal is kinda bad. Emp allows way more interaction does it ? Force field was a sort of stasis replacement, just as many many other bw spells were remodeled into sc2, or in short they became less powerful and out-microable, for the easier to cast thing. PDD is a good example for a more microable version of the dark swarm. Forcefields for me is a good example of a microable version of stasis, though the unnerfed version was so much closer to stasis. But i actually find forcefields have a high interaction factor, like storm for example, stay in those and your dead. Same goes for a toss clumping your army with forcefields to optimize splash. If you want to fight an army without dealing with the other army i think an rts involving micro is not something you wanna play.
Very good post. This expressed a lot of the opinions I've had about SC2 for a while now. The key factor you touched upon I think is the lack of area control in SC2, hopefully with the units coming in with HotS that will change.
I really hope they change the colossus in a major way for HotS too, but I don't think it'll happen, maybe in time for LotV... I entirely forgot that the roach was once an interesting, dynamic unit that all fell by the wayside. I can understand it though, because blizz needed to balance for the lower levels where both people just A-move their armies, and roaches were far outperforming in those situations.
The swarm host and the shredder both have massive potential for good area control, and balanced properly I think HotS may be able to move away from the one punch kills and all-ins you're talking about, which I really hope is the case. On top of the map control, the defensive advantage needs to go up as well, so that people are more comfortable going for pure harass based strats for the first portion of the game, until siege units come out.
I agree with what you said in OP. Also I have noticed a huge "emphasis"(maybe?) on spell casters. Almost no army can function well without any. For example in Tvp, if the terran has emp and uses it well then protoss just gets CRUSHED. Now if terran is missing emp then protoss gets 2 storms off and you get crushed. I believe that instead of adding more units with spells blizzad should make units more microable and make spells be more of "support" spells where they do not determine the outcome of the battle but more make your units more effective if used right.
I like the general flavor of the article - that this game needs more options centered around controlling terrain and less options around building an army, that this game needs units with more micro (and to make the micro required cause a unit to be more rewarding than 1aing marauders, roaches or colossi), and that the lack of useful static defense is hurting the game. I agree with the general spirit that the game needs to turn more towards chess, and less towards... whatever 1a-ing armies against each other is supposed to be. However, I think some of the specific complaints are either wrong or misleading. I think the sentry and phoenix are interesting units micro-wise, and are adding to the interactions of the game.
I’d love to see protoss get a space-controlling unit. That will probably never happen, though. Expanding in any matchup as P is real scary right now.
On January 11 2012 06:53 Treehead wrote: I’d love to see protoss get a space-controlling unit. That will probably never happen, though. Expanding in any matchup as P is real scary right now.
On January 11 2012 03:37 LanZ wrote: A really nice thread you wrote.
As for the 111, you can't blame a build order to make a badly designed unit become good.
OP mentioned nothing about the design of the unit, just the design of the surrounding game. If you're gonna comment on other people's posts, please know what you're talking about.
Edit: Oh, my bad, maybe I worded it differently from what I was thinking, hell I can't even comprehend how I wrote badly designed, I just got riled up when people blame a unit for a build order being what it is. Without actually looking at it from another perspective.
Now that my mind is clear, my point is, it's not the tank that's badly designed, it's more of how easy it gets countered from what the OP says, that's making it look bad in my eyes when compared to the BW counterpart being way stronger. Through the patches, that decreased the tank's usefulness. Just my opinion on it.
BUT I still stand by my point that I don't think the tank is to blame for the 1-1-1 being good.
I find it oddly similar to the modern mech switch in BW TvZ, only it's in the early game for SC2 TvP. It's hard to handle that many marines + a few tanks, and also a banshee disrupting your economy.
Not that this is having to do with the game development post, (because I don't really like so I won't just flame away at it) but its very hard to get to the tech that counters tanks pretty well. Lategame, sure. Immortals and Colossus and air and gateway upgrades are wonderful 160 on 160. But at 8-12 minutes (depending on what T all-in is coming) its challenging to get out the units necessary to mitigate the tanks. That's why the 1-1-1 is good. Oh... and marines good unit ^_^
I disagree with some of the criticism of P's juggernauts. The entire race is balanced around the sentry to mitigate the strength of FF. Early game, half decent control is required to stay alive, and should you lose a single army or even a chunk within the first 15 minutes of the game you are damned to failure. This is neglecting that despite the unit's importance to P against a lot of army compositions, there are so many units that will outright negate or kill it. Baneling drops are critically underused against Sentry focused mid game armies, and the Infestor outright nullifies it.
Secondly, the Colossus is obviously a very blunt unit, and most especially so against Zerg. Regardless, the unit is so important that it will take up a hotkey spot of its own, for the purpose of moving it away from Vikings or hyper aggressive roaches. To have to add those extra movements in the middle of a battle where already you need to be laying down good FF's and managing your Blink CD's -- It's not super ridiculous, but it really forces P to watch the battle, and limits our ability to macro or tech during any sort of engagement.
What I'd like to add is the overimportance of allround units. The marine/marauder, the roach and the stalker are units that can be used against basically everything that is thrown against them, apart from special builds (sky terran vs roaches obviously). Same goes for the queen which is absolutely necessary for multiple purposes (antiair, transfuse, creep, inject) so that a zerg simply can't live without one. Or the orbital command which is economy booster and early detection at the same time, both vital to most strategies you're going up against.
What that leads to is staleness. Staleness of builds, staleness of unit compositions (having the "one best unit composition" is a stupid idea to begin with) and the lack of reaction needed to certain enemy builds. Diversions from these builds are only used to enable extreme cheese (heavy rax play skipping OC) or defending against it (get hydras against a 2-stargate opener just to throw them away later when colossi arrive). There's so much stuff that is standard (because it's unfortunately the one most efficient way to play), completely nullifying strategic diversity.
The unit I miss the most is the scourge actually. Fucking useless against most other units + buildings, extremely high risk-reward ratio (scouting or sniping vessels/mutas/drops). Defensive or offensive use. Build scarcely to only prevent drops or mass them to fight for air superiority. Now that's a cool unit with a specific use. Not a unit that you mass, upgrade and then win the game.
The Colossus: Why is this unit microless? A moving is a symptom of overpowering unit compositions, of which the colossus can be viewed as taking part in. The fact colossus can stand on units does lead itself to deathball scenarios, however the unit encourages good micro outside of anything deathball scenario, and demands thoughtful engagements inside deathball scenario.
You can't be serious....
The collossus takes absolutely no micro at all, in fact it's actually most effective when just a-moved into the opponent's army. and the fact that the collossus can stand on top of other units makes it even easier to 'micro' because it doesn't matter if it's poorly positioned inside the protoss army pre-battle because it can just reposition itself once it's a moved without any micro being required by the player.
With that being said, I almost agree with everything the OP said and I would definitely add chargelots to the units that require no micro. If there is one unit in this game that requires absolutely no skill to use it definitely is the chargelot.
actually if you micro the collosus its splash increases.
Not exact numbers but you get the idea EX: target a marine= the splash width is 1 EX: target a maruader= splash width is 2
Focus-firing is standard with pretty much every unit, but since focus fire can be shift-queued it doesn't really classifiy is micro intense, you could basically say the same about every unit, even the thor, it's also better to focus fire with thors, but it's kind of obvious that focus-firing is not intense micro.
the point is that if you target a maruader with a collosus you can hit two rows of marines as well where as if you target a marine you will not hit a second row of marines...
this is new to me..are you sure it's true? Or even better have some video proof or anything?
Making the post completely negative reduces a lot of legitimacy from the OP. I agree with some things you say (all have been said before), but I think its appropriate in threads like these to include the things SC2 does well, which are more numerous than the problems you've stated.
On January 11 2012 07:19 Millard wrote: Making the post completely negative reduces a lot of legitimacy from the OP. I agree with some things you say (all have been said before), but I think its appropriate in threads like these to include the things SC2 does well, which are more numerous than the problems you've stated.
It's not like SC2 is a kid that you can't be too harsh with him, I don't see why the OP should add what SC2 does well, we need to point out what's wrong so it gets fixed and we get a better game.
Great post, even is a lot of this stuff has been touched on before. Especially the part about lack of zoning/terrain control units and the one-side units like infestor/sentry/marauder/collosus. It's not about balance or anything like that at all, these types of units are just shitty to play against. Reminds of the Brits in CoH; they were indisputably the weakest race in 1v1 back when I played, but universally hated non-the-less because digging them out of trenches was such a bother. Once they were in a trench there was not much to be done short of getting counter units. Although that game had a lot bad rock-paper-scissor relationships in general, the trenches were particularly bad.
I don't think collosi are microless, I think majority of players just dont use them well. Look at hero warp prism micro for example!
Target firing clumps etc is still under valued, so is spreading units. We'll see what happens as the game progresses, but I'd remind you all, at this point in BW history people were still debating whether hotkeys were good to use or not!
Really interesting read. I am someone who has never played brood war and just hopped on to the rts scene with Starcraft 2, but I do find myself agreeing with a lot of what you wrote in the two parts. I think more demanding mechanics in SC2 would make the game a lot more rewarding.
I agree with many of the points that you bring up here, but your argument is very one sided. While you bring up many flaws, you bring up few successes. There are many units in the game which require micro. Blink Stalkers, mutas harass, spreading marines vs banelings etc.
What I'm trying to say is that you are right, much of the game is A-move (at least at this juncture), but your article came across to me as very one-sided. While the micro-ability of the game could be dramatically improved, it is already doing some things well.
I'm not sure the things listed in the OP are problems with the unit design instead of with how they are currently used. I'd argue that there is currently a huge room for improvement on unit placement prior to engagements. Solid unit placement limits the effectiveness of AoE spells of any race. Dimaga's series against JYP in the Homestory Cup shows good and bad unit placement, specifically Dimaga's brood lord placement.
One could also argue that drop and harassment units offer a different form of space control. Dropping/harassing your opponent can require their units to deal with these actions, limiting the areas that can they can occupy and influence.
How badly designed is the Colossus? This article made me see, thanks. I knew it was bad, but now I know it's pretty terrible. I mean, if you took away the cliff walking ability, people would just shrug.
You have written an excellent article here. It clearly addresses issues commonly brought up in a straight-forward manner. The lack of the defender's advantage and the importance of positioning is the root cause. In Brood War there were defenses that were almost unbreakable for every race in most matchups e.g. lurkers+swarm+simcity, tanks+turrets, reavers/storms+simcity; in sc2, zerg lacks any "unbreakable" defense except maybe spine+fungal, siege lines are a shade of their former self, and toss has forcefields which may help defend, but do not allow control of an area. This has lead to many other problems such as ball vs ball and a lack of small engagements for map control. One immediately put themself at risk with any concerted harassment effort because of the consequential weaker army. Compare this to say brood war tvt where gigantic dropship fleets moved around the map simply because only a fraction of the army was needed for defense.
On January 11 2012 06:17 MCDayC wrote: See, what you said about static d was backed up by fact, and therefore the debate actually becomes more interesting. In the case of Zerd static D, I would still disagree, as they have the ability to move the building, which more than the buildings being slightly weaker. I would still like to hear a clarification as to why Phoenix is an anti/bad micro unit. I honestly can't think of a reason why.
The point of static D is to provide defense. If it doesn't do that very well, then why would anyone get it? Besides, the slow root timing on spines, combined with ridiculously slow movespeed off creep, basically forces them to be stationary unless you have 100% absolute map control and can safely move them.
Phoenix aren't a bad unit, but the auto-shooting while moving mechanic is rather silly. How would you feel if hellions did that? Stalkers? All units in the game? Auto-shoot just doesn't fit in with the rest of Starcraft. Maybe it's a personal gripe from beta when everyone just facepalmed at the implementation, but I find it a very bad precedent and it wouldn't make sense on other units.
The point of static D is to provide defense. If it doesn't do that very well, then why would anyone get it? Besides, the slow root timing on spines, combined with ridiculously slow movespeed off creep, basically forces them to be stationary unless you have 100% absolute map control and can safely move them.
Phoenix aren't a bad unit, but the auto-shooting while moving mechanic is rather silly. How would you feel if hellions did that? Stalkers? All units in the game? Auto-shoot just doesn't fit in with the rest of Starcraft. Maybe it's a personal gripe from beta when everyone just facepalmed at the implementation, but I find it a very bad precedent and it wouldn't make sense on other units.[/QUOTE]
+1
If they were any better they'd be pretty rediculus lategame though , since you can mass move them, but yeah, they need to be changed.
Great read, all you SC2-only generation of players need to understand what's written here, tired of the garbage you guys spout about "we don't want BW2.0," well ya know what BW vets don't either. We just want these crucial aspects of the game in BW that created epic and dynamic games, not just big army clashes of which army was stronger.
This is probably the best arcitle on TL I've read so far. I especially liked the part about micro-killers! Ever since beta I was sure they're gona remake FFs and Con. shells... ah... maybe I'm just playing the wrong game
On January 11 2012 13:39 Chunhyang wrote: How badly designed is the Colossus? This article made me see, thanks. I knew it was bad, but now I know it's pretty terrible. I mean, if you took away the cliff walking ability, people would just shrug.
lol, you learned nothing about the colossus, because you just forgot about one of the biggest sinergys of Stalker-Colossus based armies...
Nice article. Disagree on some things but for the most part agree.
Always wondered what ForceFields would be like if they had a fairly significant cast time, say up to a second or so. You could effectively bait P into wasting them without sacrificing too much of their strengths that P has to rely on.
Thors frustrate me not just because they are big dumb unit that can't really be micro'd, but also because it really closes off a lot of micro/harass by Muta. Watching Jaedong or Savior dancing around the T push picking off marines at the edge or Tanks left too far behind was always really great to watch and was obviously pretty crucial from a balance perspective as well. If the lack of proper Muta stacking wasn't enough (and its not tooooo bad in SC2, you can still sort of ball your mutas if you spam click enough :3) Terran has this Unit that really prevents you from harassing his army at all. It feels like they pay some minerals and gas to completely shut off an avenue of play thats interesting to watch.
Roach is a really problematic unit. I'd love it if that brought back the regenarative ability to allow it to be a strong early/midgame unit with a micro requirement even it it lost stats elsewhere. Hydras also fall under the micro-less catagory imo. Too small of an HP pool to bother conserving, and if they are off creep then once you've engaged thats it. They either win the fight or die trying.
But hey, at least Ultras are microintensive units ^^
On January 12 2012 01:01 KissKiss wrote: Nice article. Disagree on some things but for the most part agree.
Always wondered what ForceFields would be like if they had a fairly significant cast time, say up to a second or so. You could effectively bait P into wasting them without sacrificing too much of their strengths that P has to rely on.
Thors frustrate me not just because they are big dumb unit that can't really be micro'd, but also because it really closes off a lot of micro/harass by Muta. Watching Jaedong or Savior dancing around the T push picking off marines at the edge or Tanks left too far behind was always really great to watch and was obviously pretty crucial from a balance perspective as well. If the lack of proper Muta stacking wasn't enough (and its not tooooo bad in SC2, you can still sort of ball your mutas if you spam click enough :3) Terran has this Unit that really prevents you from harassing his army at all. It feels like they pay some minerals and gas to completely shut off an avenue of play thats interesting to watch.
Roach is a really problematic unit. I'd love it if that brought back the regenarative ability to allow it to be a strong early/midgame unit with a micro requirement even it it lost stats elsewhere. Hydras also fall under the micro-less catagory imo. Too small of an HP pool to bother conserving, and if they are off creep then once you've engaged thats it. They either win the fight or die trying.
But hey, at least Ultras are microintensive units ^^
Thor is a good example of a Juggernaut unit that exists to actually limit interaction between players and reduce the game complexity, I agree. It didn't always have AOE anti air, and it was a lot more enjoyable to use back in early beta, especially with a much slower but more powerful ground attack that actually made it almost like a reaver (and you saw thor-drop like reaver-drop too, it was pretty cool!)
As for the hydra being a micro-less unit, I agree, but hydras also don't perform every role, and so at least you need other micro intensive units to support them.
On January 12 2012 01:09 dnld12 wrote: Its good but SCRAPPING EVERYTHING AND GOIGN BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD IS... TO LATE RIGHT NOW. wE Deal with what we got.
Warcraft 3 underwent a HUGE redesign in TFT. I don't think there's any reason to believe that it's too late.
While I disagreed with a lot of your points in the previous thread, mainly the dumbing down of the game/interface/AI etc to make it more interest, while there are other existing ways to make it interesting. I do believe you've hit the nail on the head here.
While SC2 does have a lot of well designed and fun to use units, I do believe that some units/abilities really ruin some of the dynamics. In particular I hate FF, WG and Colossus, not the ideas themselves but they way they are implemented, in such a way that all the other units of Protoss had to be nerfed and are forced most of the time into deathball situations. Its not surprising that protoss suffers from so many problems and has been the center of controversy for so long when they have the most controversial and talked about units/mechanics in the entire game.
People keep saying Protoss need a strong raiding unit, something that is strong without adding to the deathball. I think what Protoss really needs is for WG, FF and Colossus to re-designed in some way or another in such a way that it permits the buffing of the GW units, and actually allows for units to be strong on their own, then you'd see way more raiding parties, counter-attacks and such from Protoss.
I totally agree with this blog. Everything about it hits one of the biggest fundamental design problems with SC2 harder than 50 banelings on 10 marines. This isn't a balance whine either. In fact balance isn't even brought up here.
I wish Blizzard would read this blog and completely rethink the way they think about the game, in time for HOTS. The anti-micro aspect that was brought up is a very important flaw, and even professional players have been known to bring that up.
it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
There is no bias in his post, the main reason he compares BW to SC2 is because they are so similar, made by the same company, set in the same universe, have many units that transitioned from one game to another etc.
And, I really don't see where the progress is in the RTS genre when you have a unit that fills 99% of the roles other units fill and just makes half your repertoire redundant. Or when you have units that limit interaction. The Colossus is the main culprit of this, its so powerful that the other Toss units had to be nerfed to compensate. Look at sentries, super strong because of FF, so strong in fact that the the other toss units had to be nerfed (again), to balance them.
There really is no coincidence that Protoss has been the center of talk and controversy for the entire life of SC2 thus far, wheter it was for them being OP or UP.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
Does Country like China ? sounds anything familiar to you ? If what you claim is true than china wouldn't have their own bw scene , which is quite huge if you actually look in to it . Maybe you haven't been around during bw golden age when even foreigners were quite popular in broodwar , foreigners winning against Korean in WcG . You are saying that broodwar only made huge impact in korea and it didn't reach globally which is entirely wrong .
Besides that what's wrong with OP comparing it to the closest source that starcraft 2 was born from ? How is he showing bias by looking at precedent ? How is he unwilling to accept advantages of other rts games ? When sc2 still requires you to micro your unit ? Can you micro your units in Supreme Commander 2 as well as Sc2 ? . Do you have heroes in Sc2 like Wc3 ? . In my opinion OP did a good job looking at things as it is . Telling the thing as it is , he could have actually rub the open wound with more salt and compared the microable units using bw as comparison and he held back on using that as an example .
Except on the topic of map control , he did used savior's lurker hold amazing play .
beside the sc2 vs. sc:bw stuff i think everyone will agree when i say that the most interresting component of every RTS game is the Battle. I want to have epic Battles back and forward over a long period of time. If everythink i have, or see as a spectator, is dissapearing instantly, after 20 minutes of macroing is just boring.
This maybe is not 100% accurate for every MU. But at least its true for the most PvT´s.
Blizzard put a lot of efford to make SC2 fast pace, but at the end i think it din´t work out so well.
But i also think there is a lot of potenzial and SC2 will evolve. Players improve and expansions are still not out!
On January 11 2012 07:06 Tehweenus wrote: Secondly, the Colossus is obviously a very blunt unit, and most especially so against Zerg. Regardless, the unit is so important that it will take up a hotkey spot of its own
1. Saying that roaches do not require micro is ridiculous -- splitting, hugging and stutter step are key for unburrowed roaches. Burrow micro with tunneling claws (which improves regeneration significantly) can turn the tide of a game. 2. The micro reducing abilities only reduce the micro of the units that get trapped by them -- there is a lot of micro involved in respecting and countering these abilities. EMP/Snipe or Feedback or even just flanking to focus down infestors and sentries -- all take tons of micro. Also, fungal's root duration and damage have been scaled back to where it is nowhere near as problematic as it used to be. 3. Phoenix don't take micro?!?!?!?! -- phoenix v. muta is very micro intensive and spreading v. infestors is key 4. Siege tanks can't control position? Siege tanks can lock the map in tvt and tvz. 5. "Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed." -- All three WILL kill you if you don't have detection. I would say burrow's ineffectivness is more due to the ease of detection -- Nobody plays without detection. 6. The creep mechanic is a great way to hold ground -- creep was only a inconvenience zerg had to deal with in SC:BW. 7. Spines/spores force siege to handle efficiently -- without colossus, a few spines shut down protoss, same for terran without tank.
As long as they promote more dynamic play that requires more micro and thought on part of all races and I think sc2 will do fine... I don't buy the "it's in the game already so its too late" train of thought, since expansions will radically change the face of the game regardless, and the main selling point of sc2 is an esport-- so that's a poor excuse.
In particular I think protoss could use some help... I really dislike colossus design for reasons stated in article, and HOTS tempest design really builds on that since it's another massive aoe unit (Since it is large and slow probably best used in defense or as part of your deathball)
Anyways interesting play is, IMO, of greater importance to racial balance (which can be addressed). But if you have a balanced game which is stale then you would be stuck, until the next expansion at least. So while blizzard team says they focus on "cool units"... they are being short-sighted and should expand that to be "cool units that promote interesting matchups and gameplay"
On January 12 2012 02:04 Mr. Black wrote: A few points:
1. Saying that roaches do not require micro is ridiculous -- splitting, hugging and stutter step are key for unburrowed roaches. Burrow micro with tunneling claws (which improves regeneration significantly) can turn the tide of a game.
During huge battles roaches work better amoved then with burrow micro. In small battles in certain occasions yes you may be right, if there is no detection on the battlefield but most of the time roaches are one of the best examples to a microless unit. Most of the time they work better when they are extremely close to the opponent's army then with kiting.
On January 11 2012 06:53 Treehead wrote: I’d love to see protoss get a space-controlling unit. That will probably never happen, though. Expanding in any matchup as P is real scary right now.
The collossus is basically a mobile siege tank?
Space controlling unit and "splash damage" aren't the same thing. In SC1, you could create areas where space controlling units like the old siege tank and the lurker could hold that area incredibly cost effectively. They could be broken, but the amount of resources needed to break it far outweighed what was gained by doing so. It looks like (though who can say for sure?) Blizzard is trying to make shredders and swarm hosts into this type of unit in SC2. Protoss has no units revealed which do anything like this. You can try to use Colossi to hold an area from smaller forces, but generally they're going to die very quickly for their cost without something else in front of it. They're also very expensive in resources, tech time, and food. Don't get me wrong, they're great in a fight - but for defending an area, 3-5 photons cannons will kill things faster, be similar in resource expenditure (incl tech costs) and harder to break.
Not that siege tanks are always cost-effective in being space controlling units (though it's the best we've got in SC2) - but can you say the same of siege tanks and bunkers?
Edit: A shredder is actually the perfect example of this. Assuming it pulses at a moderate rate and has a non-silly range, how many zerglings/banelings does it take to kill a shredder? (Hint: It's a trick question.)
However, there's much comparison to Brood War. SC:BW is arguably the pinnacle of RTS, but WOL is a different game in an, admittedly, different age.
I play toss, so all my examples are... toss.
The appearance of massive "unmicroable" units is a newish phenomenon. However, by virtue of their cost in time, production, tech, it's generally impossible to use them alone (okay, I know we have War of the Worlds PVP, but I swear the gateway units are just hiding underneath). You need to complement them with other units, e.g. colossi with gateway units. The latter need to be micro'd: sentries need to be FF'd, zealots need to be in the front, stalkers should be focusing down AA and blinking, HT should be STOOOORM.
Zone control. I think you may be referring more to map control. Zone control to me feels like forcing opponent's units around in an engagement (smaller scale than map control). That happens plenty. HT (and to an extent other AoE units), Sentry forces your opponent to stay away until they can find an angle to engage from. Even chargelots can act as a form of zone control by establishing the line of battle.
Map control. Early game, highly mobile units like hellions and speedlings hold map control. Late game, well, there's a reason that the map ends up in split map situations. A player has "map control", by virtue of defender's advantage-- their army has static D which can tilt the balance, and also the benefit of faster reinforcement. Then you sacrifice some of your control to try and make your opponent lose some of his-- a drop by terran loses army but damages infra or eco. A switch to BL sacrifices mobility (and thus, defense and reaction) for pushing power.
Blizzard may have had different roles in mind when they created the units. Players found a better, more practical, niche for them. WOL is a different game from its predecessor, no matter how good it was. Actually, who even knows what Blizzard had in mind for the units in BW?
This is a lot better than your part 1 which I disagreed with. Good thread.
You forgot Voids as far as microless. There used to be a nice micro interaction getting and keeping that humongous charge damage, now not so much. Just 1a and move back upon taking damage. Hated that change. Phoenix require 10x more micro than VR considering they have grav and can kite other air. Carriers micro does not work as advertized with the 14 range deal so I'd add that unit as well.
Blizz seems they are about to address space control with expansion units though so I have some hope.
space controlling units (and high ground advantages) prevent games from turning into single game deciding army vs army clashes. the only BW matchup dominated like that to some extent is PvP, but even then there are many micro tricks you can use with dark archons, shuttle reavers and the ever difficult storm carpeting.
honestly the only sc2 matchup that has some semblance of...strategy...is TvT. would be better if mech did not suck so hard.
the rest of the matchups seem to be about one player overruning the other's position with more units. not with funky moves like boxer's bio doom drop on tanks but just by having a more powerful army. it's very strange to watch.
Your starcraft 1 bias is totally ruining your article. You write well, but tha´s about it i´m afraid :/
Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better.
There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them.
What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess.
We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here
Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this.
Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches.
I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
Most people reading this and refuting his little micro points have a super flawed idea of what the OP is trying to say. I don't care if its "brood war bias" or not, but these are fundamental things that don't necessarily break the game, just give it a really flawed design if you're trying to go forward.
He's not saying "phoenix requires no micro", he's saying that having move-attack in the game is just stupid.
The OP is brilliant and really offers another conception for the game as a whole (territory control instead of clashing deathball, which is a more strategic POV after all), but the comments are really depressing. Balance, really? Whoever talks about the game is whining about balance? Is talking about the game taboo now?
Idiocy runs deep. As Seiferz said, you plain and simply missed the point.
On January 12 2012 02:35 n0btozz wrote: Your starcraft 1 bias is totally ruining your article. You write well, but tha´s about it i´m afraid :/
Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better.
There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them.
What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess.
We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here
Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this.
Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches.
I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
Wow, the difference between these posts couldn't be bigger, to think that they are next to eachother... One overflowing with ignorance, the other wise words from an expert.
On January 12 2012 02:42 Seiferz wrote: Most people reading this and refuting his little micro points have a super flawed idea of what the OP is trying to say. I don't care if its "brood war bias" or not, but these are fundamental things that don't necessarily break the game, just give it a really flawed design if you're trying to go forward.
He's not saying "phoenix requires no micro", he's saying that having move-attack in the game is just stupid.
I linked that video in the first part cause it's just so damn good. Sean is truly gifted as a teacher and speaker. I wish I could explain things as well as he can.
Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too?
On January 12 2012 02:35 n0btozz wrote: Your starcraft 1 bias is totally ruining your article. You write well, but tha´s about it i´m afraid :/
Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better.
There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them.
What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess.
We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here
Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this.
Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches.
I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
Wow, the difference between these posts couldn't be bigger, to think that they are next to eachother... One overflowing with ignorance, the other wise words from an expert.
How so? Explain? Do protoss players just roll out with their colossi and units without detection vs burrowed roaches? Do terran not spend scans looking for burrowed banelings? Do forcefields not cause the other races to choose the positioning of their armies very carefully, not to engage somewhere where 2-3 forcefields could completely ruin them? Is it not ok that tanks are matchup specific? Are phoenixes not in many cases very micro heavy? At least they seem to be too hard to micro flawlessly for the pro´s, so I don´t know.
I´d love to see some sort of an intelligent answer from you.
[QUOTE]On January 11 2012 05:57 ChaosTerran wrote: [QUOTE]On January 11 2012 05:42 Tor wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 11 2012 04:16 Scootaloo wrote: For one, not a single line about the ghost and it's absurdly powerfull spells in the vZ and vP matchups, both of which require minimal micro and are almost impossible to counter.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but this is 100% wrong. You are arguing that the ghost doesn't require much micro? Name a single unit in SC2 that actually requires more micro than the ghost to be used effectively? Using mass snipes is quite possibly one of the most micro-intensive actions in the game and casting EMP requires micro too. I really don't see your point, especially not the claim that ghosts aren't micro intensive. Question, have you ever used mass ghosts before?
You also claim later that bio is not micro-intensive. Well, again. You are extremely wrong. Stutter-stepping is not hard to do, I give you that, but it's extremely time-consuming and very micro-intense. It's not always about the difficulty, but about the intensity and bio micro is quite intense, because it can take ages, especially against chargelots (which by the way only have to be a-moved, so if you want to complain about no-micro, why not complain about the unit that actually takes no micro, but complain about the units that have to be microed - doesnt really make sense)[/QUOTE]
For one using high templars require more skill, same goes for infestors, ravens and sentries, you need to storm in good locations or they will be microed out, or you'll even hit your own units in the worst case. And feedbacking a unit as tiny as the ghost that even has cloak is ridiculously hard with a terran having scans to kill obs and can just snipe overseers. Casting emp's is a joke as it can't be dodged, and terran hardly has any mana using units that would make you have to watch out where you cast it. Snipe is also super easy as all the unit's you have to hit are gigantic, ultras, broods and infestors.
Pretty much every spellcaster is harder to micro then ghosts, and ghosts, with snipe amd cloak are hy far the easiest to keep alive, and this is further helped by their high hp and terran pretty much alwayals having a medi armada at that point. And about your difficulties with bio, I always found the assumption that bio is hard always rather insulting and I suspect its due to terrans superiority complex when theyre the only complete race. In contrast to a zerg and toss army, where you have to have different control groups for every unit type because otherwise they lose optimal formation you can just 1a a bioball and do some minor stutter stepping, which, again, is not difficult. I used to play toss and when I switched over to terran I noticed that a normal gateway army alone requires a lot more micro then bio, you actually have to think, forcefield, stalker engagement and micro, while the terran just 1as and kites with far faster units. Bio is a joke as far as micro goes, it might be a bit intensive at times but by no means difficult as its just repeatong the same move over and over again. If you really think bio is hard, go play some mech or switch race, it will open your eyes. As noted before, this does not include rine splitting.
Real terrans play mech, bio is just a browder solution so noobs can play it too.
On January 12 2012 02:35 n0btozz wrote: Your starcraft 1 bias is totally ruining your article. You write well, but tha´s about it i´m afraid :/
Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better.
There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them.
What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess.
We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here
Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this.
Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches.
I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
Wow, the difference between these posts couldn't be bigger, to think that they are next to eachother... One overflowing with ignorance, the other wise words from an expert.
And then we have a post like your that actually doesn't add anything to the discussion.
On January 12 2012 02:35 n0btozz wrote: Your starcraft 1 bias is totally ruining your article. You write well, but tha´s about it i´m afraid :/
Your text is so full of misconceptions and false statements that if I didn´t know better, I´d have thought you were a gold league player who was better at starcraft 1, full of bitterness. But as I said, I know better.
There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them.
What you are saying is, you don´t watch the game? A lot of micro and positioning goes on, exactly because of force fields. Watch more games is all I can say to you I guess.
We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here
Again, how can you be so wrong...Phoenixes are very micro heavy, if you want them in your army, you need to micro them a lot.The shoot while you move makes them, if well microed, the very viable anti muta weapon for protoss, at least early game. It just seems you don´t watch the game at all, and set out with the mindset of bashing it when you wrote this.
Yes you loved them in BW, they are not the same in SC2, but so what? They are always used in TvZ and sorry that they are not as popular in TvP, except in 1-1-1 or such goofie things, but I think most people realize that this isn´t SC1, units don´t need to be the same, and it´s ok that some core units from SC1, are now simply matchup specific.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit... ...The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
Again. I don´t see terran moving out without wasting millions of scans against burrowed banelings. You need detection on bases against infestors and if a protoss ever were to move out vs burrowed roaches without any detection...well the protoss deathball would be more like the protoss playtoy, because the burrowed roaches would get straight under the colossi, 1 shot them and then demolish the rest of protosses pitiful armies with their much more cost efficient roaches.
I don´t know how so many wrong statements fitted into a top article on TL, but just the fact that it did is sad in my eyes.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
Wow, the difference between these posts couldn't be bigger, to think that they are next to eachother... One overflowing with ignorance, the other wise words from an expert.
How so? Explain? Do protoss players just roll out with their colossi and units without detection vs burrowed roaches? Do terran not spend scans looking for burrowed banelings? Do forcefields not cause the other races to choose the positioning of their armies very carefully, not to engage somewhere where 2-3 forcefields could completely ruin them? Is it not ok that tanks are matchup specific? Are phoenixes not in many cases very micro heavy? At least they seem to be too hard to micro flawlessly for the pro´s, so I don´t know.
I´d love to see some sort of an intelligent answer from you.
He can answer that by disregarding what you just wrote.
This thread is not about how forcefields are OP. It's about how the game could be more about the strategic control of the map through key points and key units that have very little offensive power but pack a punch in controlling a certain ground.
Strategy in real life, as in chess, is not about armies clashing. It's about logistics, supply routes, catching the enemy's vanguard off-guard. Napoleon was one of the first generals to divide his army into battle to gain mobility and successfully surround the opponent. Because things become much more complex and interesting when the game is about small skirmishes, where various battles occur, where retreat is possible. But in the current state of things, it's just an army VS an army, deathball against deathball, as if both were giant magnets.
And yes, I did watch "MVP against MC" and yes, late-game is just one army dancing in front of the other, waiting for the spellcasters micro wars to end in favour of a player or the other. For now there is no middle-ground between decisive battles and harass.
On January 12 2012 03:09 Scootaloo wrote: In contrast to a zerg and toss army, where you have to have different control groups for every unit type because otherwise they lose optimal formation you can just 1a a bioball and do some minor stutter stepping, which, again, is not difficult. [...] Bio is a joke as far as micro goes, it might be a bit intensive at times but by no means difficult as its just repeatong the same move over and over again. If you really think bio is hard, go play some mech or switch race, it will open your eyes. [...] Real terrans play mech, bio is just a browder solution so noobs can play it too.
This, for example, is balance whining, pure QQ. The OP is not. Learn the difference guys.
On January 12 2012 02:55 tdt wrote: Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too?
see, it is posts like these that I can't take BW vs sc2 thread seriously.
I would like to clarify when I said popular I meant as an "esport" title. sc1 was fairly popular in every places where there is working computer cause it is one of the best playable game in the 90s, I played it for a good 2 or 3 years before going onto Diablo 2 back in the days. But it really didn't kick off anywhere esport wise except in Korea.
First, there are plenty of RTS games out there that rival BW in terms of strategy or micro, but just didn't have the backing and wasn't at the right place at the right time.
Secondly, BW did not "start" esport, at least for the western scene. Sure, it may be the first "Esport" title, but its debatable whether it actually did anything to competitive gaming in the Western side. I'd imagine Counter Strike laid down the footwork for that aspect.
And finally just a speculation, I don't think most sc2 fan have played or gave a rat ass for broodwar. Saying that sc2 success is riding on BW's tails is quite a claim, if not counter-intuitive given that most of sc2 support are westerners, and unlikely those supports are consists majority of previously small and diminishing bw community and not just new Esport enthusiastic.
Good article. I sense a little terran bias here, since you neglect to mention things like planetary fortresses, mass seige tanks and such. Even forcefields are a form of terrain control, since it keeps players on their toes in certain areas of the map. You also don't touch on the role maps play in game design. Also, it is incorrect that forcefields cannot be micro'd against, you can do medvac pick ups, roach burrow, blink and the like. Fungal growth cannot be microed against, and neither can concussive shell (at least in the phase of the game in which it is most powerful). But concussive is a form of space control like force fields. Later of course, there are tanks. The only race that lacks such control would seem to be zerg, which may not suit their playstyle.
Imo I do not enjoy 40 minute tank positional battles, these are as devoid of fluid counter attacking, harassment based styles as all the games you point out. * This is however extremely dependant on the map*. This is especially so for terrans, any TvZ on Shakura's is a good example. Bio play would seem to be a refreshing change from this.
I agree with you about the roach, and must point out that this applies to the marauder as well. Stalkers are more fragile and with blink, provide interesting avenues to play. Hydralisks imo are rarely seen because while they perform a role similar to marines, they cost much more and basically cannot be microed. The regeneration aspect in the beta would have been broken with the current version of the roach, it would have to be a lot more fragile for that to matter, and it would be similar to blink. The brute force of marauders and roaches acts as a space controller for a large portion of the game, a role also played by forcefields.
What you mention here applies best to mirror match ups. All mirror match ups in SC2 depend heavily on how either player meta games the other, with good games emerging only where players prefer to play a more 'standard' style.
PS: Pretty sure units like colossi, thors, brood lords and ultras are not meant to be micro'd so much as micro'd against.
On January 12 2012 02:55 tdt wrote: Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too?
see, it is posts like these that I can't take BW vs sc2 thread seriously.
I would like to clarify when I said popular I meant as an "esport" title. sc1 was fairly popular in every places where there is working computer cause it is one of the best playable game in the 90s, I played it for a good 2 or 3 years before going onto Diablo 2 back in the days. But it really didn't kick off anywhere esport wise except in Korea.
First, there are plenty of RTS games out there that rival BW in terms of strategy or micro, but just didn't have the backing and wasn't at the right place at the right time.
Secondly, BW did not "start" esport, at least for the western scene. Sure, it may be the first "Esport" title, but its debatable whether it actually did anything to competitive gaming in the Western side. I'd imagine Counter Strike laid down the footwork for that aspect.
And finally just a speculation, I don't think most sc2 fan have played or gave a rat ass for broodwar. Saying that sc2 success is riding on BW's tails is quite a claim, if not counter-intuitive given that most of sc2 support are from westerners and there is a dimming but quite loud bw community
Two ways I can tell the original poster is a Terran player:
1. The section about tanks is underdeveloped and seems pretty opinionated.
2. The conclusion section states Starcraft 2 revolves around "making an army to kill off the opponent, with little emphasis on surviving". To me, this just screams Terran harass. The other two races are usually more oriented about gaining a superiority, whether it be economically with the Zerg or technologically with the Protoss. Terran is definitely that race with a "let's go kill stuff" philosophy. Bio armies are extremely mobile, Terran have the most harass options available, and Mules combined with SCV repair makes a Terran all-in the most effective.
After reading the thread, I also became overwhelmed with how much thought is invested into unit interaction. Some units like Colossus fulfill extremely important, yet subtle roles in some match ups.
For example in a PvT, imagine a Terran bio army that didn't have to invest supply or resources into Viking production. That would just mean more Marauders and Marines, which are already effective against Protoss in general. Simply the presence of Colossus forces Terran to act more strategically of when and how they engage, instead of simply stimming forward like a brainless juggernaut. You can see examples of this in early stages of a PvT, when a Terran wants to punish a Protoss expand before any Colossus are out.
iky you just took a royal shit on the BW foreigner scene.
I don't like you and to me it doesn't sound like you followed any of our clan leagues or ladders.
No offense. You come across as someone who just played on B.Net.
The timing was great for Korea. I'll give you that, but everything else. Nooooo. Just because there wasn't a whole lot of money being thrown around our scene doesn't mean we didn't exist. -.-
On January 12 2012 03:29 StarStruck wrote: iky you just took a royal shit on the BW foreigner scene.
I don't like you and to me it doesn't sound like you followed any of our clan leagues or ladders.
No offense. You come across as someone who just played on B.Net.
The timing was great for Korea. I'll give you that, but everything else. Nooooo. Just because there wasn't a whole lot of money being thrown around our scene doesn't mean we didn't exist. -.-
I'm speaking harshly because I am quite sick of threads like these and some posters obvious hatred (yes hatred) to sc2, just like the guy I quoted.
Do we need another why bw is awesome and sc2 is crap thread, with chocolate covering instead of sprinkles this time?
While I do agree with OP on some points, I don't see why every "sc2 flaws" thread needs to make comparison with broodwar and bw only, and almost always neglecting interesting dynamics that comes with sc2 that should be encouraged, instead we just point out flaws and make reference to broodwar
I'm just as tired of it, but certain things will never go away. Eventually you have to accept it for what it is or ignore the outlandish comments entirely.
This was in the first post, which also had its fair share of bias, but now you begin with comparing SC2 with C&C, really well done!
I shall allow myself to conveniently reduce my analysis to unit design, as you did, and i come to the conclusion, that, with nearly allpowerful units like the defiler, broodwar has much more in common with the superweapons of C&C than SC2, i even remember many BW fans cherishing those units for their "comeback" potential, this of course absolutely disregards the very good balance of starcraft games, but is none the less insulting, since C&C titles, especially under the care of EA have never been balanced at all.
Lets forget that uninteresting introduction, which is similar to the mentioning of other games, such as chess or pong, rather irrelevant, because it ultimately leads to *TRUMPETS* a SC2 vs BW rant, which it still is, even if you declare it is not.
so microreducing abilities it is:
1) forcefields:
true enough, these can be very powerful, however seeing a terran load his split force into medivacs and using the forcefieldsagainst the zealots, or using burrowed roaches or baneling drops as a zerg are powerful and viable abilities to prevent this, in short you fail to realize that this ability forces as much micro as it prevents, with the addition that the opponent prepares countermeasures INSTEAD of attackmoving unupgraded t1.
2) fungal growth:
this ability truly limits your ability to micro, tanks cannot unsiege, units not enter dropships, nothing can move, but in reality the existance of infestors on the field requires a lot of micro BEFORE the engagement, prozergs always reposition their roaches in order to get a good a widespread concave.
3) concussive shells:
this upgrade is powerful in the early stages of the game, but units with speedupgrades (especially zerg on creep) can disengage really well, also the terran bioforce is an army that is designed to kite and chase, as unmicroed it loses its straightup fights to the other races.
next are the units:
1) colossus:
i agree, this unit is rather boring, but at least it is not as random as the reaver (will the scarab actually hit its target???) but its sheer strength requires a lot of attention concerning its position, vikings and corruptors are hunting for a good angle so as boring as it may look, actually managing your army around the colossus.
2) roach:
as others pointed out, the roachblob really is microintensive when you maximize its potential
3) thor:
Blizzard itself is not happy with it, they did not want it to be massed, hence the patches, but ultimatetively it will get changed in hots.
4) Phoenix
nc...
5*) Ultralisks
no, you did not, but if i were to write a blog like yours, i would certainly look at this rather akward unit, that not really fits into the zerg army, behaves rather stupidly, and gets blocked more often than not, maybe a slight resemblance of glorious BW AI... the ultralisk is cool, but bad, actually often terribad causing won games to be lost.
The spacecontrolling units and defenders advantage:
SC2 rewards aggression, that is a design choice, not necessarily a flaw, i think its good that harass and drops are options until defensive measures have been taken (a couple of spines / spores per bases, cannons and a HT, missile and sensor turrets or PFs are enough against drops or harrass units, but larger forces overpower them as it should be)
TL;DR: Many things you call bad or even atrocious are not mistakes, but choices of the designers, choices you would not have made maybe, but then again they are not yours to make, the post is well written, else i would not have taken my time to write this one, but you are not seeing the whole picture or you disregard it in order to make your point, SC2 is a different game, and with more rewarding aggression and parts of the defenders advantage gone, it may not resemble chess like BW used to, BUT it enables many other possibilities to outplay and outsmart your opponent as well, where broodwars defenders advantage would prevent.
so i would say sc2 offers neither a vaster amount of possibilities, nor that it is more limited, and i feel i get old and preachy repeating this so many times, but, it is a different game.
Many SC2 maps have a certain control the center, control the game feel, which leads me to believe positional battles would be terribly long and predictable. A good exception is Tal'darim Altar, which is large enough to allow for different styles.
PS: 1. I don't know why terrans think mass snipe is hard to do, its ridiculously easy to do with enough ghosts, and even if you miss you hit something so spamming it has v few side effects.
2. There is a reason SC2 is a game. Real battles may be complicated, logistical affairs, but the greatest games are always simple. There have been plenty of complex RTS' which might have been fun for a while, but were terrible multiplayer affairs. A few basic concepts and an emphasis on execution are imo what define a good RTS.
This is an awesome article, what is all this talk about "broodwar bias?" That is an ad hominem argument and so has 0 logical value, and the only way that an argument including that could work is if you not only said that but also provided a logical rebuttal to one of his primary points (which has been done somewhat, see below). I did feel that the OP's previous article was dismantled by many strong counterarguments in the comments because it was just horribly flawed, but this was very well thought through and well put.
I agree that starcraft 2 is very lacking in space control (ie everything except some terran units like the pf/tank are at best a time-buying stopgap that can't actually stop/kill a semi-serious attack in the mid-late game). It seems to me that the current HotS stuff is adding some good units to help with this, but I personally think that the shredder should be remade as a protoss unit since they are the race with the least space control right now and the least being added in HotS (as of current build).
On the issue of the micro-eliminating things like FF/FG/CS & the "no-micro" units like the colossus/marauder, it seems to me that a lot of people are missing the op's point on them: While those things can create situations for micro (the dances to try to make/avoid those abilities) and can be microed (ie scoot n shoot & other stuff that you can do with almost every other unit of the same general type) they at best remove as much opportunity for micro as they create & they are thus very lackluster units when compared to other possible units that could not only be microed in non-unit specific ways but also have interesting unit-specific ways of making more of each unit (ie blink stalkers).
On the Roach as a No-micro unit It seems to me that the people arguing against this would have a point (what with really cool stuff like roach burrow being used blink-esque etc.) except for this caveat (which is also part of why zerg space control with burrow is so lackluster)
On Burrow (and similar issues with other units like the colossus canceling its attack if you give it a new order partway through its attack) Burrow/Unburrow has a 1 SEC CAST TIME EACH WAY! There is a reason why the ultralisk burrow charge will stun all nearby units at emergence, and that is because otherwise the whole thing would be useless due to the the ultras being killed while they unburrow and can't fire back. The same goes for why you don't see ppl burrowing fields of zerglings to get truly perfect surrounds (every single enemy unit is in range of 1+ of your melee's): because the zerglings are so fragile that they will mostly die in the 1 second unburrow time where they can't attack. The whole thing is that zergs are incentivized to not use burrow ambushes because they give the enemy a far greater 1st strike bonus than when they attack from the sides (entire zerg army unable to attack for 1 sec and able to be attacked by entire enemy army). Roaches are beefy enough that they can survive the first strike damage, but they are still at a disadvantage in that case & in the case of trying to do blink-esque burrow micro the issue is that the roaches take long enough to Now, this is completely ignoring the issue of mobile detection being very easy to get without going very far out of your way at all, which adds further to the "burrow not that useful" issue.
Now, disclaimer: I hate BW and its artificial difficulty through badly done-UI/AI and I think that the game is BALANCED AND QUITE WELL DESIGNED AND FUN, I just think that it is NOT AS WELL DESIGNED AND THUS NOT AS FUN AS IT COULD BE
Those of you in beta should remember when this unit was given its wonderful shoot-while-moving ability. We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here. Move-shoot does not mean a unit that automatically shoots while you move it around. That removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot? It's just a bad mechanic.
1) They're unique in having that ability. Now, I realise that uniqueness does not automatically make a mechanic good, but it is a point in its favour. 2) One can focus fire with Phoenixes, so it's perfectly possible to choose what to shoot at. Additionally, their speed means that they can choose when to engage, and thus, when to shoot. The Phoenix does not remove any options or decisions, it simply adds new ones. 3) To use Phoenixes effectively, you need to use their maneuvrability. And their shoot-while-moving mechanic is what enables them to do so. That alone justifies its implementation.
Yes, Kukaracha, I'm qqing and youve been busy the entire thread saying there is no possible imbalance. While ypur terran, yknow the race that has to keep saying that to make themselves believe 111ing is not the same as any other ez cheese and their almost never dropping below50% winratio has to he that their better, not their race being the only one that is well designed.
Those of you in beta should remember when this unit was given its wonderful shoot-while-moving ability. We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here. Move-shoot does not mean a unit that automatically shoots while you move it around. That removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot? It's just a bad mechanic.
1) They're unique in having that ability. Now, I realise that uniqueness does not automatically make a mechanic good, but it is a point in its favour. 2) One can focus fire with Phoenixes, so it's perfectly possible to choose what to shoot at. Additionally, their speed means that they can choose when to engage, and thus, when to shoot. The Phoenix does not remove any options or decisions, it simply adds new ones. 3) To use Phoenixes effectively, you need to use their maneuvrability. And their shoot-while-moving mechanic is what enables them to do so. That alone justifies its implementation.
All protoss air can shoot while moving. That aside, Phoenixes are fine imo whats the difference between retreating with patrol or w.e and just retreating? not much. If you have the time to look at them, you're doing it anyway
On January 12 2012 02:55 tdt wrote: Yeah I think it's funny people talking about BW bias. Well no shit it started esports and is still a hit and SC2 is riding on it's coat tails and it's former players what else are you going to compare it too?
see, it is posts like these that I can't take BW vs sc2 thread seriously.
I would like to clarify when I said popular I meant as an "esport" title. sc1 was fairly popular in every places where there is working computer cause it is one of the best playable game in the 90s, I played it for a good 2 or 3 years before going onto Diablo 2 back in the days. But it really didn't kick off anywhere esport wise except in Korea.
First, there are plenty of RTS games out there that rival BW in terms of strategy or micro, but just didn't have the backing and wasn't at the right place at the right time.
Secondly, BW did not "start" esport, at least for the western scene. Sure, it may be the first "Esport" title, but its debatable whether it actually did anything to competitive gaming in the Western side. I'd imagine Counter Strike laid down the footwork for that aspect.
And finally just a speculation, I don't think most sc2 fan have played or gave a rat ass for broodwar. Saying that sc2 success is riding on BW's tails is quite a claim, if not counter-intuitive given that most of sc2 support are westerners, and unlikely those supports are consists majority of previously small and diminishing bw community and not just new Esport enthusiastic.
Any game that sells several million copies in a week upon release does so on it's predecssors success and that includes SC2 is what I mean by riding on BW's success. Natually comparisons will be made to the predecessor just like Skyrim is compared to Oblivion and Morrowind so I don;t really see the issue with that,everyone does it with every sequal. I like some tihings about SC2 better but that does not mean they couldnt do things BW did better. It's not a slight but constructive critism what goes on in these threads whether you take it serious or not.
BW was/is still huge in the west years after release, perhaps not commercially with large sponsored tounaments like now or like in Korea but it was played like crazy. I think the lacking commercial aspect has more to do with graphics as other games long passed it by for causal veiwers rather than how popular it was to play relative to SC2. Both are/were immesly popular. Perhaps CS did start esports in the West but not near the level or fanacism or BW in Korea which seems to be moving west is why I said started it all - and certainly with this genra. It owes BW a lot for laying the groundwork.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
I think a lot of us at TL forget how close Blizzard stayed to BW compaired to how much RTS games have changed in the last 10 years. Most games moved far away from base building, economic managment and the even the concept of macro. If you look at many highly rated RTS games in the last 10 years, they removed a lot of the difficulty that made BW the game that it was. And this was considered to be progress, to remove the layers of difficultly and allow players "use strategy" to win. The concept that micro was bad and no one wanted to "baby sit" their units.
And then Blizzard made SC2 and everyone loved it. If you listen to some of the interviews from Dustin about when he was first brought on to SC2, he was in shock at how far they were from the industry norm. That Blizzard was sticking with 3 factions, around 45-50 units total and that was it. That there would be no auto build, that the pathing of units would still be slightly retarted. This so far from everything that I have seen in RTS games, which are moving toward more automation.
The main conflict with SC2 right now is that Blizzard wants to the game to be accessable, but also be deep. That is a hard balance to make and can lead to things like the "death ball". The death ball really comes from the automation of the units being so efficent that there is no reason to not blob them up and smash down the front door. But Blizzard also has to make it so beginners can enjoy the game and not feel like there is an inpassable learning curve for the game. Doing this will mean few causal players over time and fewer people who may become interested in watching professional play. I recently showed a friend Liquid-Hero's stream and his response was "Wait, you play that? Why would you do that? My god, its so fast." I did tell him I would never be able to play that fast, but he was still in awe that I even attempted it. And to be clear, this friend loves RTS games, but SC2 terrified him. He is now intrested and wants to watch more professional games.
The real challenge is how to we make SC2 deeper without losing the accessability. I would love to see fewer death balls, but how do you get that done and still keep the game we have now? This is a harder task that just pointing to BW and saying "this is perfect, so you make this". Drawing some ideas from BW is great, but it should be done with a grain of salt. Blizzard isn't going to do this alone, but we do need to encourage them to give us more tools to combat the blob of DPS.
To put it another way, anyone can throw or catch a foot ball and enjoy it. Because of this, we understand how hard it is to throw the ball in the freezing cold while ten, three hundred pound men are attempting to smash the life out of you. The more people who play SC2, the more people can enjoy and respect the highest level of play. We should be wary of making the game so challenging that only the most devoted break into the game.
On January 12 2012 03:38 jinorazi wrote: phoenix is a blatant example of dumbing down. spamming right click is not impressive micro.
How can you guys be so down on Pheonix which has grav and can kite and not talk about VR or Carrier? VR had charge micro when its base was crap and charge insane but that's gone now. 1a and run is all you get with Carriers and VRs. (running is better but this is not a balance thread)
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
I think a lot of us at TL forget how close Blizzard stayed to BW compaired to how much RTS games have changed in the last 10 years. Most games moved far away from base building, economic managment and the even the concept of macro. If you look at many highly rated RTS games in the last 10 years, they removed a lot of the difficulty that made BW the game that it was. And this was considered to be progress, to remove the layers of difficultly and allow players "use strategy" to win. The concept that micro was bad and no one wanted to "baby sit" their units.
And then Blizzard made SC2 and everyone loved it. If you listen to some of the interviews from Dustin about when he was first brought on to SC2, he was in shock at how far they were from the industry norm. That Blizzard was sticking with 3 factions, around 45-50 units total and that was it. That there would be no auto build, that the pathing of units would still be slightly retarted. This so far from everything that I have seen in RTS games, which are moving toward more automation.
The main conflict with SC2 right now is that Blizzard wants to the game to be accessable, but also be deep. That is a hard balance to make and can lead to things like the "death ball". The death ball really comes from the automation of the units being so efficent that there is no reason to not blob them up and smash down the front door. But Blizzard also has to make it so beginners can enjoy the game and not feel like there is an inpassable learning curve for the game. Doing this will mean few causal players over time and fewer people who may become interested in watching professional play. I recently showed a friend Liquid-Hero's stream and his response was "Wait, you play that? Why would you do that? My god, its so fast." I did tell him I would never be able to play that fast, but he was still in awe that I even attempted it. And to be clear, this friend loves RTS games, but SC2 terrified him. He is now intrested and wants to watch more professional games.
The real challenge is how to we make SC2 deeper without losing the accessability. I would love to see fewer death balls, but how do you get that done and still keep the game we have now? This is a harder task that just pointing to BW and saying "this is perfect, so you make this". Drawing some ideas from BW is great, but it should be done with a grain of salt. Blizzard isn't going to do this alone, but we do need to encourage them to give us more tools to combat the blob of DPS.
To put it another way, anyone can throw or catch a foot ball and enjoy it. Because of this, we understand how hard it is to throw the ball in the freezing cold while ten, three hundred pound men are attempting to smash the life out of you. The more people who play SC2, the more people can enjoy and respect the highest level of play. We should be wary of making the game so challenging that only the most devoted break into the game.
How many of those "accessible" RTS's are still being played 10 or even 5 years later? And that matters the way Blizz' EULA works whereby they get a cut from tounaments. Would be wise to consider that instead of sales/accessiblty alone.
Oh lovely more BW fans coming into the SC2 forum and telling us that our game needs to be more like theirs to stop sucking; how lovely.
If you think BW is a much better designed game then watch/play BW, if you think Blizzard needs some tips on how to improve their game then post on their forums.
On January 12 2012 04:34 TheButtonmen wrote: Oh lovely more BW fans coming into the SC2 forum and telling us that our game needs to be more like theirs to stop sucking; how lovely.
If you think BW is a much better designed game then watch/play BW, if you think Blizzard needs some tips on how to improve their game then post on their forums.
people aren't split between sc2 and bw, we love both. and those who knows bw, wants sc2 to improve as it isn't "perfect".
no need to bring up sc2 vs bw. sc2 only has bw to compare to, its natural to compare.
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
I think a lot of us at TL forget how close Blizzard stayed to BW compaired to how much RTS games have changed in the last 10 years. Most games moved far away from base building, economic managment and the even the concept of macro. If you look at many highly rated RTS games in the last 10 years, they removed a lot of the difficulty that made BW the game that it was. And this was considered to be progress, to remove the layers of difficultly and allow players "use strategy" to win. The concept that micro was bad and no one wanted to "baby sit" their units.
And then Blizzard made SC2 and everyone loved it. If you listen to some of the interviews from Dustin about when he was first brought on to SC2, he was in shock at how far they were from the industry norm. That Blizzard was sticking with 3 factions, around 45-50 units total and that was it. That there would be no auto build, that the pathing of units would still be slightly retarted. This so far from everything that I have seen in RTS games, which are moving toward more automation.
The main conflict with SC2 right now is that Blizzard wants to the game to be accessable, but also be deep. That is a hard balance to make and can lead to things like the "death ball". The death ball really comes from the automation of the units being so efficent that there is no reason to not blob them up and smash down the front door. But Blizzard also has to make it so beginners can enjoy the game and not feel like there is an inpassable learning curve for the game. Doing this will mean few causal players over time and fewer people who may become interested in watching professional play. I recently showed a friend Liquid-Hero's stream and his response was "Wait, you play that? Why would you do that? My god, its so fast." I did tell him I would never be able to play that fast, but he was still in awe that I even attempted it. And to be clear, this friend loves RTS games, but SC2 terrified him. He is now intrested and wants to watch more professional games.
The real challenge is how to we make SC2 deeper without losing the accessability. I would love to see fewer death balls, but how do you get that done and still keep the game we have now? This is a harder task that just pointing to BW and saying "this is perfect, so you make this". Drawing some ideas from BW is great, but it should be done with a grain of salt. Blizzard isn't going to do this alone, but we do need to encourage them to give us more tools to combat the blob of DPS.
To put it another way, anyone can throw or catch a foot ball and enjoy it. Because of this, we understand how hard it is to throw the ball in the freezing cold while ten, three hundred pound men are attempting to smash the life out of you. The more people who play SC2, the more people can enjoy and respect the highest level of play. We should be wary of making the game so challenging that only the most devoted break into the game.
How many of those "accessible" RTS's are still being played 10 or even 5 years later? And that matters the way Blizz' EULA works whereby they get a cut from tounaments. Would be wise to consider that instead of sales/accessiblty alone.
Very few of the accessable RTS games are being played, which was my point. Blizzard understood what made BW work so well and tried to include at much of it as possible in SC2.
Also, I doubt that the amount of money Blizzard is making of their EULA and tournments could even compair to the amount they made off sales of the SC2 itself. I don't think it would be wise at all for them to consider their EULA over sales. The vast majority of purchasers do not even touch the multiplayer. I have over 20 friends who own SC2. I am the only one who plays 1v1. Most of them have never even played a single placement match.
OP is just flat out wrong on several points. You actually need to micro more vs ForceFields, Fungal allows zerg to capitalize on opponent's bad army positioning, and concussive shells ensure Protoss doesn't endlessly kite their units in the first 7 minutes of the game. Colossus has changed since beta, gasp, you need to micro it, but if you do you lose splash benefit, counter to roach is air (or if you like, the counter to anything is that anything), the Thor is slow because if it was fast no Zerg would play the game, and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level.
Conclusion: OP doesn't know enough about SC2 to be making threads like these.
As a random player, I think the most irritating aspect of this entire game are forcefields in their current form. You are right, there really is very little a player can do against them, there are so many circumstances where you are simply left helpless. And the ability to turn entire bases into instant islands indefinitely is absurdly strong.
People too quickly jump on the "But protoss needs forcefields to survive" straw man. We aren't suggesting completely removing forcefields from the game, just tweaking them in some way to make them not so damaging to the skill cap and fun of this game. I agree that being targetable with micro is a very intriguing idea for fixing this problem, though it would be difficult to balance effectively. They would likely either be too strong against early game armies, or too weak against late game armies.
On January 12 2012 04:54 tehemperorer wrote: OP is just flat out wrong on several points. You actually need to micro more vs ForceFields, Fungal allows zerg to capitalize on opponent's bad army positioning, and concussive shells ensure Protoss doesn't endlessly kite their units in the first 7 minutes of the game. Colossus has changed since beta, gasp, you need to micro it, but if you do you lose splash benefit, counter to roach is air (or if you like, the counter to anything is that anything), the Thor is slow because if it was fast no Zerg would play the game, and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level.
Conclusion: OP doesn't know enough about SC2 to be making threads like these.
"capitalize" here means "instantly win an engagement based on one microsecond of positioning."
I think you missed some points, this is not BW. SC2 has issues however there are quite a few things you point out as issues that aren't and are rather than bad design things you like about BW. Banelings kill enough. The Lurker filled a droning window/tech window that zerg needed. There is no offensive aoe in BW Zerg, There is no mid game unit that kills or holds marines other than the lurker. In Sc2 there is the infestor and speed baneling these fill the timing for zerg to hold against this.
Second the Phoenix, Look at corsair vs spire. What makes it so interesting is quite similiar of what makes Penix vs Muta interesting in Sc2. It is that neither are stronger than the other it comes down to micro from both sides. Making the Phoenix harder to micro would just make it to hard to micro vs mutas making mutas even harder to fight as they are ezpz to micro in sc2. Basically its not the weight that makes one unit interesting it is the balance between it and the counter weight.
Static defence is fine in Sc2, The point of static defence should rather than defence be to gather time. This something that Sc2 things to better than their BW counterpart does. Sunkens kill things fucking fast but Zealots destroy them.
You need to differentiate between its better design and I like it that way say that bishop could only move maximum 5 spaces, its like your saying its better that it goes as far as it want while not saying anything other than I like it this way. Having something being immobile can make thing more interesting. Terran people are using medivacs to move thors to combat a problem which make everything more interesting.
On January 12 2012 04:54 tehemperorer wrote: OP is just flat out wrong on several points. You actually need to micro more vs ForceFields, Fungal allows zerg to capitalize on opponent's bad army positioning, and concussive shells ensure Protoss doesn't endlessly kite their units in the first 7 minutes of the game. Colossus has changed since beta, gasp, you need to micro it, but if you do you lose splash benefit, counter to roach is air (or if you like, the counter to anything is that anything), the Thor is slow because if it was fast no Zerg would play the game, and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level.
Conclusion: OP doesn't know enough about SC2 to be making threads like these.
"capitalize" here means "instantly win an engagement based on one microsecond of positioning."
Instantly lose was how you got better as zerg in BW.
its the same i thought when i stopped playing sc2 but i never had the will to write about it gj but it will change nothing and the sc2 fanboys will flame you
I agree with much of what you said here. Unfortunately much of the design decisions were done to create a more accessible game to broaden the market appeal of the game to a new audience, which is why you have no-micro Juggernaut-esque units as they let lower skill players access the game more easily. Blizzard did state early on in SC2 development (if memory serves correctly) that they were looking to quicken the pace of games as well, so with that aim they didn't add much map-control units, preferring to provide players with incentives towards having visually appealing and quicker army battles.
With the changes in the HoTS, it seems like they're trying to right some of the wrongs that have happened to the multiplayer gameplay as a result of their focus on more accessible and faster gameplay, with units like the terran shredder that is supposed to provide some sort of map control. But as you said, the core units needs to be changed, and I'm not too sure if Blizzard is willing to change course 180 degrees and address the issues that you brought up.
Instead, I see them making patchwork efforts by adding a few units here and there to give players the choice to utilize their micro and superior decision making abilities to defeat opponents who solely rely on death-ball tactics. It's not a choice that I think is correct, but they are in the business of making games, and they gain nothing from alienating the vast majority of their current userbase. We have to keep in mind that the people that can fully micro, macro, and execute complex strategies are in the minority of people who play and enjoy the game.
I really like your 2 parts, because i think the exact same way! my first rts was sc2 recently i discovered bw ... and it feels so mutch better, i hope blizzard will change atleast something
Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. I have to credit Blizzard for making it fit into a game at all. However, the way they implemented it in beta was absolutely game-breaking. Many of you remember the days before massive units crushed forcefields. Many of you remember the days when you could trap units literally inside forcefields so they were unable to do anything. Forcefield was so destructive to the game that Blizzard had to patch in fixes for it. However, part of me thinks that they were only buckling to community complaints and didn't realize exactly what fundamental flaws forcefield had which caused it to be a source for complaint in the first place.
Forcefields cannot be interacted with by the opposing player. All you can do is try to avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy through EMP if you're terran. It comes down to, “does he hit good forcefields or not?” There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. I've seen (and been in) many games where a forcefield on the ramp literally ends the game, because there is literally nothing the other player can do about it. Force stuck outside your main? Well, you lost the game.
Force Field is the worst problem in SC2 it's a clutch mechanic that you can't avoid unless the Protoss messes up.
Force Fields do not belong in the game because it encourages little to no micro and saving you in a clutch situations. clutch mechanics do not belong in RTS and Force Fields certainly are something that the enemy player Terran/Zerg can do little about unless you have medivacs and/or burrowed roaches.
But in many situations in the game you will not have these units/upgrades yet and auto-lose to good force fields.
Broken mechanics should not be involved in an RTS. I'd hope they can re-create the race to not require Force Fields.
On January 12 2012 04:54 tehemperorer wrote: OP is just flat out wrong on several points. You actually need to micro more vs ForceFields, Fungal allows zerg to capitalize on opponent's bad army positioning, and concussive shells ensure Protoss doesn't endlessly kite their units in the first 7 minutes of the game. Colossus has changed since beta, gasp, you need to micro it, but if you do you lose splash benefit, counter to roach is air (or if you like, the counter to anything is that anything), the Thor is slow because if it was fast no Zerg would play the game, and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level.
Conclusion: OP doesn't know enough about SC2 to be making threads like these.
meh nah i disagree. you can not micro when the ffs are casted. what exactly should i do when my ramp is blocked? yeah sure i could have prevented that but thats not the point the point is what is my response to that i dont have one."zerg"
and to talk about what is worse is kind of stupid. both ability are bad.
but to defend my point that forcefileds are worse. you can spread your army that less units are hit by that. but when you do then against ffs the toss says thx for the gift. not to mention that almost every map has 100choke points.
about the colossus. dude wtf have you even read the OP?
As such, the colossus does not need careful attention to make sure it is maximizing its role. The only thing you have to do is keep it alive, and it kills everything with glee. As such, the burden does not rest on the protoss player to use the colossus well, but the opposing player to counter them well. The colossus does not become a conduit for interaction between players, because the interaction around the unit is very one-sided, where the protoss simply makes them and his opponent has to react to the units' very existence. As such, either colossus work or they don't. There's no battle where you go, “man, that guy had such great colossus control. If he played worse there he'd have lost it.”
and by right clicking them back when there is no air unit and some 4/5/6 range units try to kill them is micro for you?
counter to roach is air
rly? and whats the counter to losing your nexus/hatch?
and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level.
Yea I thought it was a pretty good read and agreed with a lot of it. Its sad to see some people in this thread so butt hurt about one mans comments on the game... If you don't agree that fine lol there's no need to sound bitter. No I haven't played BW so so don't call me a fan boy lol, I think there is still room for improvement with sc2 and look forward to seeing it develop.
Comparing the Colossus to the Reaver really shows you how poorly designed the Colossus is. That isn't to say that the Reaver needs to return, as it doesn't. The Colossus just needs to be made harder.
Most glaringly is the Colossus' absurd ability to walk over friendly units, meaning you can't even catch the goddamn thing out of position. If you go through work of flanking the unit and attack it at the rear of it's ball where it's vulnerable, it'll just walk over it's stalkers until it's safe back in the middle. It's very hard to be punished for using a Colossus poorly.
I wouldn't mind seeing a Protoss without warp gates, force fields, and easymode Colossus... but it's probably too late to make such radical changes.
There is zero new information in this article. This argument has been made countless times on TL, with the same points (whine), and the same BW vids posted. None of what you're saying (essentially repeating) will change the game in any way, shape, or form. Why don't you just let it go?
Hm, like the idea and the big message of the thread. But you're way too zerg-bias.
At least infestors don't have any attack and are T2 units, so there's some opportunity cost for utilizing them.
If I'd have a faster moving and cloaked T2 HT that is able to stun units with my storm (with KA/ no need for upgrading storm/ and a bit less DPS) , that would just be game breaking. But hey, at least they don't have any attack, so there'd be some opportunity cost for utilizing them.
However, i have to disagree with the importance of detection a little bit. Detection itself isn't the problem , it's terran.
They can just scan basicly everywhere, since getting an orbital isn't a option, you get it anyway. And players don't get any banelingmines against protoss, since they already expect an observer.
I completely disagree about forcefields and phoenixes. Phoenix micro can be amazing, from a clean wipe of a worker line, siege tank lifting, and phoenix vs muta micro (nearly impossible).
Forcefields are fine. Just because something is frustrating doesn't mean it is bad. If your army can't retreat, you need to have a more mobile army in the first place, of if not, fight with what you have left to at least do some damage. Forcefields can be negated by a great amount of things, just not many happen to be micro. Most are in positioning and strategy. Micro is not all that it should take to win a game. In fact, they add to the amount of micro done. Whether it is baiting them out, burrowing under them, lifting/dropping over/under them, or casting perfect FF's like MC, they are a critical part of any engagement where sentries are involved.
I also disagree about tanks. They have their role in 2 out of 3 matchups, and are seen in almost every game of these matchups. They provide the most map control of any unit in the game, and that is very important. They don't need to be changed.
On January 12 2012 04:54 tehemperorer wrote: OP is just flat out wrong on several points. You actually need to micro more vs ForceFields, Fungal allows zerg to capitalize on opponent's bad army positioning, and concussive shells ensure Protoss doesn't endlessly kite their units in the first 7 minutes of the game. Colossus has changed since beta, gasp, you need to micro it, but if you do you lose splash benefit, counter to roach is air (or if you like, the counter to anything is that anything), the Thor is slow because if it was fast no Zerg would play the game, and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level.
Conclusion: OP doesn't know enough about SC2 to be making threads like these.
meh nah i disagree. you can not micro when the ffs are casted. -----Forcefields cannot be used anywhere, if you got caught in a choke it's because you've ceded map control or something else has allowed ff to be more effective than it really is... especially early game where there aren't that many sentries around and they haven't built energy what exactly should i do when my ramp is blocked? -- you've already allowed either drop penetration in the main which is solved by OL position or you had inadequate defenses at your natural and lost to a timing push, solved by better scouting, army positioning, map presence, etc. yeah sure i could have prevented that but thats not the point -----arguably, it is the point... if you lose to 4gate you could have solved it by prevention, that's the point, same with DT rush, etc. the point is what is my response to that i dont have one."zerg" ----- same thing, do you respond to DT rush or do you prepare against it? Why is ff any different?
and to talk about what is worse is kind of stupid. both ability are bad.
but to defend my point that forcefileds are worse. you can spread your army that less units are hit by that. ----- yeah, flanking is extremely effective vs sentry compositions, you force them to control waaaay more surface areas than single chokes but when you do then against ffs the toss says thx for the gift. not to mention that almost every map has 100choke points. -----TDA?
about the colossus. dude wtf have you even read the OP?
As such, the colossus does not need careful attention to make sure it is maximizing its role. The only thing you have to do is keep it alive, and it kills everything with glee. As such, the burden does not rest on the protoss player to use the colossus well, but the opposing player to counter them well. The colossus does not become a conduit for interaction between players, because the interaction around the unit is very one-sided, where the protoss simply makes them and his opponent has to react to the units' very existence. As such, either colossus work or they don't. There's no battle where you go, “man, that guy had such great colossus control. If he played worse there he'd have lost it.”
----- colossus micro is required, play in masters. It's fun to oversimplify things when complaining or when raging but not when you're actually discussing unit roles and uses.
and by right clicking them back when there is no air unit and some 4/5/6 range units try to kill them is micro for you? -----sounds like someone didn't scout, u need the air unit
rly? and whats the counter to losing your nexus/hatch? ----- VRs or scout+cannons solve roach busts, his whole point about roaches is basically a complaint against roaches being a staple in all matchups, and that's why I said he's wrong. Roach CAN be a staple, but so can Muta ling, which is extremely effective in PvZ and TvZ. If he's complaining about ZvZ, it's baseless; roaches need to have places where they're useful, why complain about it when they are? In general there's no basis for his roach bias other than he simply doesn't like them. Ask any pro, "do you need to micro roaches." If you get a serious answer, it will be a "yes, no shit."
and you've clearly never played phoenix vs muta at a high level. ----- You are incorrect. When phoenix are out you spend a lot of time watching them, if its phoenix vs muta you basically cannot take your eyes off of phoenix for more than a few seconds. I play high masters, that's more than high enough to know that the ceiling for phoenix micro is far beyond what I play at.
Your section about tanks seems pretty illogical to me. To start, you basically just listed a bunch of units that have the ability to kill tanks, with all but two being protoss, and declared that every unit is designed to kill tanks. Looking at terran and Zerg, you seem to suggest that the existence of marauders and broodlords have led to tanks never being made (as suggested by you saying "what happened to these guys?" as if we never see them). You sound like you don't even watch Starcraft 2 (edit:after looking through some of your comments, it's actually clear that you watch very little SC2) since the siege tank is a, if not THE, core unit in both matchups. By the same tokens, I think the siege tank in Starcraft 2 is an excellently designed unit that has caused countless great and interesting games. To give an example of how they still are great at controlling the map, a great recent game is Ganzi vs Jjakji in the GSL on Antiga. Ganzi makes a great play by sending a sizable army to Jjakji's main that, although easily cleaned up by Jjakji's massive tank count, allowed Ganzi to seize control of the center, and the game from there. As far as vZ goes, your mentioned Broodlords, but it would be pretty goddamn dumb if a tier 3 air unit wasn't effective against siege tanks. Even with broodlords, tanks are essential and TvZ, which is why you always hear casters mention the significance of a zerg managing to pick off the occasional siege tank. You mention that they are flawed "especially vs protoss", but it seems clear that they are flawed only against protoss.
As for banelings, more and more zerg players are beginning to utilize burrow effectively. I don't really disagree with your general idea here about how lurkers led to more interesting interactions, but to me, your argument was not very effective. I found it especially humorous that in your little Savior's lurker clip, you proclaim "Banelings just can't do that" despite it being the exact situation where a baneling would be effective, as the terran clumped up all of his bio on the burrowed zerg unit (clumped in a BALL as well which you suggested in your previous article was not a problem in Broodwar).
As far as static defense goes, SC2 cannons are of comparable strength to BW cannons, bunkers are much stronger than they used to be with the increased effectiveness of repair, and I'd say missile turrets are stronger in SC2 as well. I guess sunkens were stronger than spines, but spines obviously have the bonus that they can uproot and move if need be, as well as having the ability to be transfused by queens. Obviously there is more to static defense than the sheer strength of the building, and maybe I severely misunderstood your argument, but that section was not very thought out in my opinion.
Although I think you brought up a lot of great points (all of which have been brought up many times, though perhaps articulated less effectively) and had a solid overarching idea, the (what I considered) major flaws really detracted from the persuasiveness of your argument and made it come off as just another post whining about Starcraft 2. Thanks for taking the time to write it though, I hope you respond and possibly clarify these mistakes. Also, I did not read most of the comments, so sorry if other people have said similar things.
edit: "TvZ and TvT definitely are the best matchups to watch and play in SC2. That's because there's strong elements of map control in both matchups. Defender's advantage keeps both sides from just killing each other, and so you actually get multiple and complex engagements." You yourself made this claim in the previous thread, why would you use such stupid language like "No Zone Control Units" and "There is almost no way to hold ground in this game" and go on a rant about how useless siege tanks are when you contradicted yourself in a different comment. After reading this a second time, the OP's post is just so... wrong.
Pretty decent assertions made, but nothing completely groundbreaking. I like how "units" are described in the piece, but it largely seems like reiterated balance complaints dressed up in a longer, slightly redundant write-up with graphics.
SC2 as you've described is very precarious at this point. There was such a huge focus on creating units to counter other units in early patches, but what can they actually DO? The title made me expectant of greater things--perhaps discussion about what balance should be like, what game designers should be trying to do as opposed to exclusively talking about SC2's flaws in an extremely generalized manner.
i really love how someone finally goes and points out all the flaws in sc2 and with great support. in my own opinion ive always thought sc2 was a very poorly designed game, but it looks like hots has a strong chance at changing that, or at least we can hope.
This is a nice thread and well argued. I disagree with almost everything you said, but I really enjoyed reading a well throught out opinion on the opposite of my thoughts
well i disagree with everything you said, i think there are many people in those 9 pages who already expressed what i want to say, so there is no need to write another wall of text
On January 12 2012 06:07 Hakanfrog wrote: Pheonixes and thors?
Pheonixes are extremely microable and thors are units that imo shouldnt have to be microable since their sole purpose is to kill mutalisks.
I hate how protoss is balanced around FFs though.
Phoenixes are not microable, they micro themselves. -_-
They would be microable if they didn't have auto shoot.
This is when we get into the Semantics of what "micro" means, which is a dumb argument. But many BW elitest will say that SC2 players do not know what micro means and units in SC2 require almost no micro. Its an easy argument, because it cannot be countered or argued against, since they define what micro means in the context of the argument.
On January 12 2012 07:06 Ulfsark wrote: Dude reading this made me depressed and made me wonder why I spend so much time playing haha. damn.
lol just because SC2 doesn't have the same mechanics as BW doesn't mean it's a bad game. They're just different. SC2 is still a ridiculously fun game, and so is BW.
On January 12 2012 06:07 Hakanfrog wrote: Pheonixes and thors?
Pheonixes are extremely microable and thors are units that imo shouldnt have to be microable since their sole purpose is to kill mutalisks.
I hate how protoss is balanced around FFs though.
Phoenixes are not microable, they micro themselves. -_-
They would be microable if they didn't have auto shoot.
Hmm are you really trying to say that Phoenixes is not microable? You dont think a master make them more worth than a platinum player? You dont think MC make them more worth then Axslav(or any lower tier protoss). What in the holy hell am i reading.
The OP is stupid, foolish, and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. I have to credit Blizzard for making it fit into a game at all. However, the way they implemented it in beta was absolutely game-breaking. Many of you remember the days before massive units crushed forcefields. Many of you remember the days when you could trap units literally inside forcefields so they were unable to do anything. Forcefield was so destructive to the game that Blizzard had to patch in fixes for it. However, part of me thinks that they were only buckling to community complaints and didn't realize exactly what fundamental flaws forcefield had which caused it to be a source for complaint in the first place.
Forcefields cannot be interacted with by the opposing player. All you can do is try to avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy through EMP if you're terran. It comes down to, “does he hit good forcefields or not?” There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. I've seen (and been in) many games where a forcefield on the ramp literally ends the game, because there is literally nothing the other player can do about it. Force stuck outside your main? Well, you lost the game.
There is no dance between players? What the hell game are playing? ZvP is basically defined by how well a zerg can deal with forcefields. Learning how to avoid forcefields and avoiding bad situations with forcefields is how you play the damn game. That's micro, positioning, and skill. Dealing with Forcefields is one of the things that blatantly raises the skill ceiling very high in Starcraft 2, and this is why people whine about it.
Dealing with Forcefields is hard. That's what makes the game fun and interesting: the fact that you can get better at it. If you notice, good zergs actually know how to deal with forcefields.
The same is true for fungal growth. Good players actually know how to deal with it. It's HARD to deal with. If you get caught badly out of position, you can lose, just like forcefield. Good players are the ones that know how to avoid getting into those situations. Look at Mutalisk vs Infestor micro! This is raising the skill ceiling! This is adding more depth to the game! You're complaining about things that are making the game difficult, but it's supposed to be difficult! This is exactly the unit design we WANT for starcraft 2!
Whenever these discussions come up, people NEVER mention zergling surrounds, which is outright ridiculous. If zerg surrounds your units, you lose. You cannot micro. You cannot do anything. No one complains about this. The answer is "Well don't get into that position in the first place." It's good design. It means people have to be aware of getting surrounded. Yet apparently for these other abilities, it is bad design.
And finally: Phoenixes? Muta v Phoenix is actually pretty micro intensive. If the Protoss does it right, he can completely destroy a much larger group of mutas. It's hard to do. That's a GOOD THING!
Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. I have to credit Blizzard for making it fit into a game at all. However, the way they implemented it in beta was absolutely game-breaking. Many of you remember the days before massive units crushed forcefields. Many of you remember the days when you could trap units literally inside forcefields so they were unable to do anything. Forcefield was so destructive to the game that Blizzard had to patch in fixes for it. However, part of me thinks that they were only buckling to community complaints and didn't realize exactly what fundamental flaws forcefield had which caused it to be a source for complaint in the first place.
Forcefields cannot be interacted with by the opposing player. All you can do is try to avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy through EMP if you're terran. It comes down to, “does he hit good forcefields or not?” There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. I've seen (and been in) many games where a forcefield on the ramp literally ends the game, because there is literally nothing the other player can do about it. Force stuck outside your main? Well, you lost the game.
There is no dance between players? What the hell game are playing? ZvP is basically defined by how well a zerg can deal with forcefields. Learning how to avoid forcefields and avoiding bad situations with forcefields is how you play the damn game. That's micro, positioning, and skill. Dealing with Forcefields is one of the things that blatantly raises the skill ceiling very high in Starcraft 2, and this is why people whine about it.
Dealing with Forcefields is hard. That's what makes the game fun and interesting: the fact that you can get better at it. If you notice, good zergs actually know how to deal with forcefields.
The same is true for fungal growth. Good players actually know how to deal with it. It's HARD to deal with. If you get caught badly out of position, you can lose, just like forcefield. Good players are the ones that know how to avoid getting into those situations. Look at Mutalisk vs Infestor micro! This is raising the skill ceiling! This is adding more depth to the game! You're complaining about things that are making the game difficult, but it's supposed to be difficult! This is exactly the unit design we WANT for starcraft 2!
And finally: Phoenixes? Muta v Phoenix is actually pretty micro intensive. If the Protoss does it right, he can completely destroy a much larger group of mutas. It's hard to do. That's a GOOD THING!
Totally true, I think all that can be learned from this post is simply that the OP likes BW better than SC2. He is unable to enjoy SC2 because he can't help but compare the two whenever he is playing the other, which certainly has nothing to do with mechanics or unit design in SC2.
Bombastic title for a prolonged whine post. If you wished to have a balanced discussion about unit design you would mentioned where SC2 had gone right as well. It was never your intention to have such discussion though which makes this nothing but a whine thread with pictures.
Dude, I' starting to to doubt that the OP even plays SC2 or watches it played ever...
Never seen the Collosi use the cliff? WTF? I've seen probably thirty pro games where that mechanic is used to great effectiveness. Others where the high-ground vision it offers change the shape of the game. It's used all the time.
Never see tanks anymore? WTF? I think MVP used tanks in every single game he played last night... Come on man...
This is just like your last thread, but worse! You still don't provide any solid examples (with videos, screenshots, etc). You still are comparing the games as if they are exactly the same or should be exactly the same...
Calling the SC2 tank "weak" or "broken" because it is not exactly like the BW tank is... I don't even know how to describe how silly that is.
My take on his tank stance is the fact that tanks are more of a liability now as armies are more mobile than ever. I like the idea of having many counters to a scenario. He does have a valid point about game flow and static defense being piss poor.
Try to avoid comparisons as much as possible because people will jump on it any chance they get. Instead think about RTS fundamentals.
This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
Stop trying to prove the OP wrong and start making yourself look right. The debate itself is worthless; only possible conclusions/insight are of value. If you think forcefield or colossus design adds to the game, give some great examples of nailbiting moments revolving around colossus or sentries. If you think tanks are fine, give an example of a TvP where tanks give enough zone/map control to make the game more dynamic and interesting.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
On January 12 2012 09:11 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Dude, I' starting to to doubt that the OP even plays SC2 or watches it played ever...
Never seen the Collosi use the cliff? WTF? I've seen probably thirty pro games where that mechanic is used to great effectiveness. Others where the high-ground vision it offers change the shape of the game. It's used all the time.
Never see tanks anymore? WTF? I think MVP used tanks in every single game he played last night... Come on man...
This is just like your last thread, but worse! You still don't provide any solid examples (with videos, screenshots, etc). You still are comparing the games as if they are exactly the same or should be exactly the same...
Calling the SC2 tank "weak" or "broken" because it is not exactly like the BW tank is... I don't even know how to describe how silly that is.
You need to re-read the OP and read his FULL conclusion about each unit.
Collosi as a cliff raiding unit, not the fact that you built your robo on the high ground and it is forced to once walk down a cliff to join your ball. Yes, I know sometimes they walk up cliffs when protoss attacks, but not as an individual cliff raiding unit.
Tanks - he was talking about the ground they could permanantly hold in a TvP in BW. Zerg just rolls through them in this game unless terran is very far ahead. Protoss has many units that cancle out siege tanks as well. He is also no talking about the siege tank being weak, yet the opponents being able to get rid of it so easily.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
Stop trying to prove the OP wrong and start making yourself look right. The debate itself is worthless; only possible conclusions/insight are of value. If you think forcefield or colossus design adds to the game, give some great examples of nailbiting moments revolving around colossus or sentries. If you think tanks are fine, give an example of a TvP where tanks give enough zone/map control to make the game more dynamic and interesting.
I've seen maybe one or two posters outright object to comparing Starcraft 2 and Starcraft: Brood War, I agree that's a silly thing to refuse, but mostly, there have been criticisms of the OP for drawing bad comparisons. Banelings are not like lurkers and need not fill the exact same role, yet even so, the OP used this to argue for the Lurker's superiority and showed a video that actually exactly mimics a core use of the baneling.
And nice challenges you set out: if you think tanks are fine, then prove a map control use in TvP, the only match-up they're not used for map control.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons. I don't think it's fair to cast the OP as someone who wants the game to be 'like Brood War', other than that he wants it to be just as fun as Brood War. I do think the article he wrote was kind of badly argued, since it's too long and filled with straight assertions about Brood War unit concepts being superior to Starcraft 2 ones.
I wouldn't go out and defend the colossus and sentry myself as amazing units, though, but the two of them have created plenty of exciting moments. Forcefielding against baneling busts, overwhelming roach numbers, bio balls are all often tricky and cool to watch. That's not a good way to decide if the unit should stay or go however.
On January 12 2012 09:11 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Dude, I' starting to to doubt that the OP even plays SC2 or watches it played ever...
Never seen the Collosi use the cliff? WTF? I've seen probably thirty pro games where that mechanic is used to great effectiveness. Others where the high-ground vision it offers change the shape of the game. It's used all the time.
Never see tanks anymore? WTF? I think MVP used tanks in every single game he played last night... Come on man...
This is just like your last thread, but worse! You still don't provide any solid examples (with videos, screenshots, etc). You still are comparing the games as if they are exactly the same or should be exactly the same...
Calling the SC2 tank "weak" or "broken" because it is not exactly like the BW tank is... I don't even know how to describe how silly that is.
You need to re-read the OP and read his FULL conclusion about each unit.
Collosi as a cliff raiding unit, not the fact that you built your robo on the high ground and it is forced to once walk down a cliff to join your ball. Yes, I know sometimes they walk up cliffs when protoss attacks, but not as an individual cliff raiding unit.
Tanks - he was talking about the ground they could permanantly hold in a TvP in BW. Zerg just rolls through them in this game unless terran is very far ahead. Protoss has many units that cancle out siege tanks as well. He is also no talking about the siege tank being weak, yet the opponents being able to get rid of it so easily.
FIrst off sounds like someone needs to watch Hero and White-Ra more; they do the craziest stuff with Collosi!
Also Tanks are the key unit of TvT and one of the core units of TvZ (I'm actually completely confused where you get the idea that zergs just roll through tanks in SC2), it's okay that they aren't also a core part of TvP, every race has units which are used more heavily in certain matchups.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
shit i was ignoring this thred,didnt realize it was part 2! you should use a tag before the tittle so we dont have to scroll over to see if its a new part . lets go read =)
Thank you for the article. I found it to be quite an interesting read. A lot of the points you brought up are open to discussion but if we move beyond questions of balance and into the realm of unit design it brings up some interesting ideas.
I also think a lot of the people criticising should re-read the article instead of just looking at the headings. Cheers, looking out for any more to come :-)
On January 12 2012 10:25 Carras wrote: shit i was ignoring this thred,didnt realize it was part 2! you should use a tag before the tittle so we dont have to scroll over to see if its a new part . lets go read =)
I'll do that for the next 2 parts.
A side question: Would you guys appreciate a corollary video where I discuss the concepts and show ingame footage that illustrates what I'm talking about? I think the text/picture articles are more accessible, and certainly less work. I'd only want to video if people really felt like it added a new level to the discussion.
A side question: Would you guys appreciate a corollary video where I discuss the concepts and show ingame footage that illustrates what I'm talking about? I think the text/picture articles are more accessible, and certainly less work. I'd only want to video if people really felt like it added a new level to the discussion.
Very nice post Enjoyed it and you have brought my attention to several things I have not thought of or considered before. I mainly agree with the things you say.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but just about everyone thinks BW is a better competitive game than SC2, including every single SC2 pro-gamer. I still like Starcraft 2, in fact, I play and follow the game way more than Brood War. That's the very reason I would like to see it improved, and what better way than to draw on inspiration from its successful and amazing predecessor? If you want to claim the SC2 forum as the place for people who think SC2 is the superior game, then I just don't think team liquid is meant for you, sorry. Maybe try Reddit?
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but just about everyone thinks BW is a better competitive game than SC2
There are more SC2 fans who have zero knowledge about Broodwar then there are Broodwar fans, our community is more then an order of magnitude bigger then the BW one.
Who is this everyone?
On January 12 2012 11:15 Grumbels wrote: If you want to claim the SC2 forum as the place for people who think SC2 is the superior game, then I just don't think team liquid is meant for you, sorry. Maybe try Reddit?
What egotistical elitism is this? I need to leave TL simply because I don't consider BW a better game?
If a SC2 fan went into the BW forums and started talking about how BW needed to be changed to be more like SC2 for it to be a good game and succed the BW users would flip out, attack them and the they would be banned. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we feel the same way about our game?
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but just about everyone thinks BW is a better competitive game than SC2
There are more SC2 fans who have zero knowledge about Broodwar then there are Broodwar fans, our community is more then an order of magnitude bigger then the BW one.
On January 12 2012 11:15 Grumbels wrote: If you want to claim the SC2 forum as the place for people who think SC2 is the superior game, then I just don't think team liquid is meant for you, sorry. Maybe try Reddit?
What egotistical elitism is this? I need to leave TL simply because I don't consider BW a better game?
If a SC2 fan went into the BW forums and started talking about how BW needed to be changed to be more like SC2 for it to be a good game and succed the BW users would flip out, attack them and the they would be banned. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we feel the same way about our game?
The problem is your use of "we", which is a group of people you seem to be a spokesperson for, but that doesn't exist outside your mind. I actually couldn't stop giggling at your posts since it reminds me of the "My name is legion, for we are many." quote.
I'm sure a lot of people have never played Brood War or are even hardly familiar with it. However, Team Liquid is the world's premiere English-language Brood War site and I just really doubt that even the SC2 players and forum members here think the game is superior to BW. Maybe you and some others are an exception. I do agree the endless insinuations that the game should become virtually exactly like Brood War are obnoxious. If I see one more thread that ends with: "...and that's why we need the Reaver" I'll be offended, actually, at the utter lack of imagination and conservatism of that thought.
(and it's not even about whether BW is better than SC2, just that certain aspects of BW work out very nicely and helped contribute to its success and it would be nice for SC2 to have them - see Liquid`Tyler's post earlier)
I'd love if someone could make a custom game where test changes could be done. Imagine lower unit attack ranges but giving them upgrades. A lurker whose damage lowers depending per unit hit. Neural parasite with larger range but on hive tech. Burrow on hatch tech but maybe from pool. Upgradable spine crawlers that makes them immobile. Roaches with active high regen. Hydras with speed upgrade (not on hive= Hydras with changed stats but on hatch tech. Microable carriers. High templar without feedback. Ghosts without EMP. Destroyable forcefields. Ghosts without snipe. Fungal without immobilisation a.k.a semi-plague.
Most of these may be stupid ideas but at least it would be worthwhile to try.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but just about everyone thinks BW is a better competitive game than SC2
There are more SC2 fans who have zero knowledge about Broodwar then there are Broodwar fans, our community is more then an order of magnitude bigger then the BW one.
On January 12 2012 11:15 Grumbels wrote: If you want to claim the SC2 forum as the place for people who think SC2 is the superior game, then I just don't think team liquid is meant for you, sorry. Maybe try Reddit?
What egotistical elitism is this? I need to leave TL simply because I don't consider BW a better game?
If a SC2 fan went into the BW forums and started talking about how BW needed to be changed to be more like SC2 for it to be a good game and succed the BW users would flip out, attack them and the they would be banned. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we feel the same way about our game?
Cut this nonsense out immediately. It's not your game. It's not about SC2 vs BW. There are things about BW I dislike that SC2 improved on. However, we're not currently anticipating any expansions for BW, are we? The reason it's worth talking about what SC2 lacks is because there's two expansions on the horizon which means there's still capacity for major improvements. In its current form, there is no way SC2 will be played for a decade, just like vanilla SC would never have been played for a decade.
Argh, reading this post is painful to me. It actually contains a massive self-contradiction. First it complains about so-called "micro-reducing abilities" and then it later on complains about the lack of zone control units. But stop for a minute and look at the units that are being pointed out! Most of the so-called micro reducers are actually zone controllers.
1. Sentries: yes, after forcefields go off you can't micro very much. The result of that is that you need to scout the enemy player and avoid moving in if forcefield will lead to a losing engagement. Know what that means? It means that having a group of sentries provides zone control in a situation where an opposing army would otherwise be stronger than the protoss player's army. Sentries allow protoss players to fast expand while protecting themselves from all-ins and they act as a force multiplier by allowing the protoss player to fight the enemy force in small groups. Instead, the OP suggests that micro can only happen once armies engage, whereas dancing just outside of range, trying to bait forcefields, and forcing the protoss to get more units are all viable micro strategies that can put a lot of pressure on the opponent. After all, if they do miss those forcefields after you baited a couple times, they're dead.
2. Fungal growth: Yet another zone control ability. Get too close to an infestor when you're not ready to engage and you die. Therefore you need to keep your distance until you've built up a better army or focus on harass and backdoor attacks. How is that a bad thing? It lets zerg players protect themselves and macro, and later on it can harass with burrow and provide powerful support in an army. There is nothing about this unit that reduces micro. It punishes people for bad engagements though and certainly makes the game less forgiving.
3. Marauder: first, the OP notes that it requires micro to make good use of this unit, so that already reflects oddly in a section entitled "micro-reducing units." But we'll ignore that for a second. The marauder doesn't actually work any differently than the sentry and the infestor. It punishes you for a bad engagement. It gets much better with good use of stim and stutter steps, and it gets much worse if you don't micro it. The opponent gets rewarded for good scouting and for picking their engagements. Probably the one complaint about the marauder is that, unlike the sentry and the infestor, it doesn't have much of a force multiplier effect, so you can't use marauders to allow for more economic and harrass-based gameplay. They only work to punish bad engagements but will die if the full terran army doesn't match up to the opponent's army. Nevertheless, a marauder-heavy terran army provides a much harder form of zone control than a regular ball of death because the marauders shut down most kinds of hit and run harrassment.
-------------------------- On Micro-less units
On top of the above issues, I consider it the height of arrogance to suggest that any unit in Starcraft II, at this moment in time, would not benefit from micro. Collosus? Benefits from target firing to get the most out of its AOE, benefits from moving back and forth to bring air units into stalker range, and benefits from being in a separate control group to deal siege damage then back off into the main army. Roach? Benefits from burrow and move speed to avoid target firing, burrow movement undercuts force fields and lets a large roach army all attack, and the roach benefits heavily from flanks due to its short range.
The only reason people aren't doing most of the above is that the game is too hard. There are a ton of macro actions, large scale army movement actions, scouting actions, and harassment actions. Even the best players simply don't have the APM to micro their individual units for best effect in every conflict.
---------------
On Game Design
Game design is not about balance or complexity or unit control. Those are sub-issues. Design is about making units that look and feel fun, and that lead to fun gameplay. You need both because if fun gameplay only arises after you've invested hours and hours of work, most people will never invest the work in the first place.
Day[9]'s issue in his design discussion was that the units don't feel physical enough to him. He tried to explain that as an issue of available actions for each unit (comparing a baseball with a frisbee). But that problem is a question of feeling and unit handling across the whole game. It's NOT something that happens because there are a bunch of slowing effects on different units.
Frankly, I'm sick of reading the same complaints blasted around in an echol chamber because people don't like certain units. I feel like most of the complaints would go away if people learned not to throw their whole army into a stupid engagement (granted I personally make this mistake all the time, but I also admit that I'm not that good). The pros have been progressively improving, there are a bunch of new units on the horizon, and condemning the entire game of Starcraft II because it's not like Brood War has reached the point where the horse is practically dismembered and we're just kicking around the pieces we've beaten it so much. Just stop.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but just about everyone thinks BW is a better competitive game than SC2
There are more SC2 fans who have zero knowledge about Broodwar then there are Broodwar fans, our community is more then an order of magnitude bigger then the BW one.
Who is this everyone?
On January 12 2012 11:15 Grumbels wrote: If you want to claim the SC2 forum as the place for people who think SC2 is the superior game, then I just don't think team liquid is meant for you, sorry. Maybe try Reddit?
What egotistical elitism is this? I need to leave TL simply because I don't consider BW a better game?
If a SC2 fan went into the BW forums and started talking about how BW needed to be changed to be more like SC2 for it to be a good game and succed the BW users would flip out, attack them and the they would be banned. Why is it so hard for you to understand that we feel the same way about our game?
The problem is your use of "we", which is a group of people you seem to be a spokesperson for, but that doesn't exist outside your mind. I actually couldn't stop giggling at your posts since it reminds me of the "My name is legion, for we are many." quote.
I'm sure a lot of people have never played Brood War or are even hardly familiar with it. However, Team Liquid is the world's premiere English-language Brood War site and I just really doubt that even the SC2 players and forum members here think the game is superior to BW. Maybe you and some others are an exception. I do agree the endless insinuations that the game should become virtually exactly like Brood War are obnoxious. If I see one more thread that ends with: "...and that's why we need the Reaver" I'll be offended, actually, at the utter lack of imagination and conservatism of that thought.
(and it's not even about whether BW is better than SC2, just that certain aspects of BW work out very nicely and helped contribute to its success and it would be nice for SC2 to have them - see Liquid`Tyler's post earlier)
There's no problem in saying "we" here. The problem is that you do not seem to consider that perhaps there are people who think SC2 is a better game. Though you seem to say "maybe you and some others are an exception"
So basically you completely contradicted yourself, and really don't have a point.
Geeh, stop taking everything literally. I just mean that you should expect people in TL to consider BW the better game, so you have no claim to tell them to stay out of the SC2 forum. You can be happy with SC2 as it is and resent attempts to turn it into Brood War, but if someone says stuff like: "don't come here to our forum if you ... " then that's a different matter, because now suddenly there are two sides that are fighting against each other and so on (very tiresome and creates a hostile atmosphere).
Someone on the staff should put it to a poll really. As a news article. BW vs SC2. Grudge. Cage match.
I think BW wins for more competitive game, better spectator game, better overall game, but worse for silvers and such.
---
These threads keep popping up and show dissatisfaction on the TL forums with the way Blizzard designed this game.
I remember long ago that colossus, roaches and corrupters won the polls for worst designed units ever. The art/failed unit concept dictated the resulting unit; It's really disheartening for a true fan to see that blizzard isn't thinking of cutting the units in HotS.
I don't really get how people think the OP is a balance whine or a BW vs SC2 whine. It doesn't even talk about balance and it's focus is not particularly about why everyone should watch BW instead.
Rather given that SC2 has 2 upcoming sequels, we are going to have some massive change, so what sort of changes would be good? What sort of things would increase the skill level? And when we're thinking of improvements, the easiest thing to do is to pull examples from similar sorts of games and how they've done certain elements better. You can argue which game as a whole is better, but can anyone declare that SC2 has nothing to learn from any game ever? Or do you propose describing these concepts using no examples.
If SC2 has at the very least something to learn from other games, then the question is which one? Its contemporaries? SupCom2? Bad idea, in my opinion as they've automated absolutely everything decreasing the skill level in the hunt for this supposed 'less useless clicking so I have more time to think up strategies' idea. DoW? Maybe, but the cover mechanics and the like don't really fit well. Battle for Middle Earth II and it's painfully slow troop movement that is utterly unmicroable? C&C4's utter fail? I'm sure there are things to be learned from each of these, but all of them have pushed into different directions which makes there lessons a lot less relevant.
We could look further back at Age of Mythology, where there are spells... automated with no ability to control. But I suppose you could argue that frees you up to do even more micro tricks... such as? um, dunno. Better spell casting IS what that free apm is supposed be for.
BW is probably the most relevant example as it is the direct ancestor and has (emphasis on present tense) the most success in pro-level playing and longevity. Forget about which one is better. We're not going to agree. Consider, SC2 is great, but we have some expansions coming up. Can it be better? If so, are there some useful lessons to be learned? I don't want another BW, I am playing that already. But I do want SC2 to be the best it can be.
I think that you are neglecting to look at a lot of important mechanics in starcraft 2, but the most glaring hole in your post is I think, where you start saying that because starcraft 2 abilities are too dificult to use properly that makes them worthless. Especially when the utility of those abilities has been REPEATEDLY demonstrated in high level play.
Baneling landmines completely changed the way map control worked in TvZ because suddenly one wrong move cost an overaggressive Terran his entire army. For like 2 months after that tactic became popular you would see terrans use 2-3 scans while crossing the map and take care to position their armies away from routes that were too intuitive. Now baneling landmines are a consistant part of zerg play. You need only look at leenock's most recent group games to see the utility of baneling landmines when controlled properly. Not only are landmines amazing, but I remember when marine king prime showed me that well microed marines could actually come out well in a trade with banelings. It was amazing to watch him doing something with terran units that I had never thought was possible.
Siege tanks are the central piece in TvZ and TvT. They are quite literally one of the most instrumental units in the game and control the flow of both of those match ups. You seem to be saying that they aren't powerful enough because they take too much micro to position well. (when you talk about how long it takes to go into siege mode and how easily air units kill a unit that cant kill air) All of these things that you worry about destroying your siege tanks are countered by meticulous control by the terran and clever positioning and (gasp) abuse of high ground for vision. It is also very dificult to focus fire banelings with tanks while kiting zerglings. If you want to see what it looks like when a terran is really getting the best out of his units watch Fin vs leenock (or MVP doing anything at all). Fin did huge damage with an army that was arguably weaker than leenocks because he had great control and daring micro.
Now lets talk about the sentry. The sentry is, in my mind, a unit that can really showcase the skills of the pros compared to us schmoes. Forcefields are so versatile and timing dependant that there is almost no ceiling to how good they can be. There is no hard and fast rule dictating when and where you should cast your forcefields and they are a very limited resource, so it gives pro players a ton of room do demonstrate their skill and decision making. If you have ever watched protoss play, you will see that there is a huge variety in how pro's cast forcefields dependant on what they think is the best use for them at the moment. This is one of the skills that differentiates really top tier protoss from the average pro.
About your problem with armies being able to disengage, this may be more of stylistic choice, but i disagree that someone who makes a mistake should be able to get away with it scott free. I think that they should be punished for playing poorly. If you charge a protoss and you are so vastly outnumbered that he has the option to use his forcefields to do anything but survive, then you have made a huge mistake and do not deserve to get away. Likewise with marauders. If you make a micro mistake and engage a terran that you do not want to engage, you should pay for that mistake. Concussive shells allow terran to pick off a few units without being able to instantly kill your army.
Fungal growth is slightly different. It is not really an ability that prevents your escape, because if you think about it, regardless of what you do the entire zerg army is more mobile than you in almost every situation. There not very many times that a zerg who has just won a battle will not be able to outrun you as you retreat, so the use of fungal is clearly not to hold an army in place as it tries to escape. Instead fungals design shows that it is meant to be used in the heat of battle once zerg has backed an army into a corner. It lets zerg trade cost efficiently with a cornered army that is likely much stronger than it is. So seen in this light, fungal is necessary for zerg to be able to corner an opponent, but not useful for chasing down an army. Pro play supports this because I cannot recall the last game that I saw fungals saved to trap an army in retreat. If a zerg has fungals he uses them immediately because they are critical to a favorable outcome.
I suspect that you have never microed pheonix, because I find it hard to believe that you think that they require no control. Pheonix are some of the most micro intensive things that protoss can build. A group of pheonix cannot just go kill a group of mutas of equal size, because while the pheonix win if the zerg decides not to micro, clever zergs frequently will turn when the mutas attack cooldown is up and try to take advantage of the protoss player not being able to react quickly enough to pick off the pheonixes chasing them. The trade between two microning players is by no means as straightforward as you suggest. In addition the gravition is a brilliantly balanced ability that gives pheonix a ton of utility while forcing the player using pheonix to make important decisions about how to use them. Trying to lift things with pheonix is inherently risky and the pheonix is the cause of a ton of brilliant micro on the parts of both protoss and zerg. (I havent seen pheonix vs terran, but perhaps is mech comes into vogue like artosis keeps claiming then we will see some great pvt pheonixes.)
With regards to AOE, it is very powerful, but perhaps that is a good thing. Like the thor, storms are both very powerful and comparatively immobile, but maybe that is a good thing. It forces the player not using the aoe to showcase his controll by dodging a potentially game ending blow. Maybe sometimes we need strong immobile things for a speedy and daring micro player to barely dodge. Just think about how tense you get watching lings and banelings micro against each other. Don't you get some of that same tension every time a pack of mutas gets near a thor or a templar is storming near a zerg army?
But what about microless units? As it turns out, those dont exist. Increasingly we are seeing pros utilize tiny things like keeping their army spread to do more initial damage and running around with increasingly small groups of units. In the beta, things like Bit by Bit's all ins may have been popular, where you just smash a and try to kill your opponent, but as the game is becoming more understood you will see things like blink stalkers widely separated from the army, or a small group of 5 zealots going to harrass an expand while the army pokes at the front. Zergs are exhibiting better and better ling/roach/muta control. and profiting from every single thing that terran and protoss forget to micro. Terran players have always been all over the place with drops, but their ability to control the bioball has improved by leaps and bounds and clever drop play has won many people games. Not only that, but as players are getting better and better smaller advantages matter more. All pros now micro even the smallest of armies to their full potential and this is making the game consistently more interesting to watch. Players who are strong in early micro and can manage to take out a few extra units in the early game have a noticeable food advantage going into the mid/late game.
Finally the discussion of "microless units" brings me to the discussion of how units move in SC2. Rather than complaining that splitting an army in SC2 is "too difficult," maybe you could look at it the way you look at the ability to only select 12 units in brood war. Because AOE is so powerful, splitting your army and preventing it from clumping becomes critical as you become a better player, but is not necessarily going to matter in a lower game. The feeling of fighting the AI is still there, but it is no longer a deterrant to new players. Thus this movement style is still a way to differentiate pros who have incredible technical skill from the rest of us, but this mechanic doesnt remove the fun from people just learning the game. I remember when I tried to play SC1 and the frankly clunky and outdated UI/AI turned me off from the game. Selecting only a few units at a time may be a technical hurdle that only the very good players can overcome, but it adds nothing to the satisfaction of playing. It is a mechanic that can only frustrate and provides no reward to the person actually playing the game. It may make for a better spectacle, as we watch pros who have mastered this difficult method of control play against each other, but to me, it added nothing to the game. I look forward to seeing pros get better and better at managing their armies during engagements, because believe me, there is still room to improve. (ex. I think it is possible that zergs will start to spread their brood lords to avoid the archon toilet. This would take a talented player to micro it, but potentially the rewards are huge.)
I guess what I'm saying is that in general I disagree with you and think that you have not actually thought through the game mechanics you are criticizing. Im not saying that starcraft 2 is a perfect game (im looking at you hydralisk), but I think it is better designed than you give it credit for. I look forward to the host of new strategies that the tweaks and changes in the upcoming years will bring.
So glad someone made this argument. It's one of the biggest systemic problems with SC2 currently, and it's a shame it's not been properly presented until now.
Unfortunately, it might be too abstract a concept and will likely be misinterpreted as complaining about balance (game design and game balance seem difficult to separate for a lot of people).
There's no problem in saying "we" here. The problem is that you do not seem to consider that perhaps there are people who think SC2 is a better game. Though you seem to say "maybe you and some others are an exception"
So basically you completely contradicted yourself, and really don't have a point.
That's problematic too because a lot of those people you are talking about haven't really experienced both. Blind faith isn't necessarily healthy either.
As I mentioned earlier, it comes down to looking at basic principles of RTS. What do you enjoy about SC2? What don't you enjoy? Etc.
On January 12 2012 12:55 Falling wrote: I don't really get how people think the OP is a balance whine or a BW vs SC2 whine. It doesn't even talk about balance and it's focus is not particularly about why everyone should watch BW instead.
As pro's like LiquidTyler have reiterated the same sentiment, just new generation of SC2 only players that never understood or played BW at a high level misinterpreting and blindly defending SC2, when all people really want is an improved an SC2 that borrows a few key aspects that made BW great, and no, not added "artificially hard mechanics" like 12-limit cap that these SC2-only players continually rant about. No one wants that, they just want the KEY ASPECTS that can make SC2 better, that made BW dynamic and great to watch. Not that SC2 doesn't have perks or pros, it makes some valiant strides forward, but it's missing some key things.
On January 11 2012 03:09 EternaLLegacy wrote: Part 2: Unit Design
While my mechanics article suggested that this part would be about macro-mechanics, due to the direction discussion seems to have been leaning, I have decided to address what seems to be the biggest source of controversy in this part: unit design. I will talk about macro-mechanics in the next part.
I think it's important to talk about unit design from a more abstract perspective before delving into the Starcraft franchise. For the purposes of this discussion, units will be defined as any object under player control which can interact with objects under another player's control. This eliminates interface elements, static map elements, and resources. A unit's purpose is to provide a conduit through which a player can channel his intentions. The skill at which a player executes these intentions reflects mechanical skill. The goals the player chooses reflect strategic skill. As such, units are a direct reflection of the skill of the player, and form a window into his mind. This is important for spectators and opponents alike to make the emotional connection to the player. This is an essential part of any sport or competition – the 'human element' as it were. So, when we talk about unit design, I think it's important to think about units as conduits for the players.
A unit has dimensions of interaction – that is – ways which it can interact. Let me provide a simple example to illustrate this idea: Take the game pong. There is only one unit each player controls, which is the paddle. The ball and playing field are analogous to the map in Starcraft. There are only 2 dimensions of interaction which the units can move. First, is the position of the unit. Each player can choose where to place the paddle at any given time. Second, is the velocity of the paddle. Each player can decide how fast and in which direction he wants to hit the ball.
Clash of the pong titans.
Now, lets remove one of these dimensions of interaction. Lets take away the velocity component to the paddle. You can now only move the paddle at a fixed rate. We can see that this will greatly affect what you can do in terms of angles imparted on the ball, and therefore the amount of unique game states which can exist. In effect, we have reduced the number of conduits between players, because now they have only one conduit, or dimension of interaction, which they are connected through, the position of the paddles.
We can see the same thing happen in chess, if we remove all pieces but pawns. The game becomes a lot less interesting, and while it is still a game of skill, there aren't nearly enough ways to outclass your opponent, and so the game becomes very stale. Any chess players probably have played the 8 pawn game and know it is completely deterministic and solvable, and therefore quite boring. This example illustrates exactly why we like to have multiple different units. Each unit offers a new dimension of interaction in chess, or sometimes even more than one (think: castling). The complexity of interaction is what allows for an interesting game, since there are many conduits connecting the players, and therefore many places where they can outsmart and outplay each other.
What the heck is going on? This is too complicated I'm playing pong.
However, more units does not necessarily mean more conduits. Imagine replacing the queen's rook with a new piece – the juggernaut. The juggernaut can move through any number of pieces, capturing them all if they are enemy pieces. Would this piece increase or decrease the number of conduits available to the players? At first glance, it sounds pretty cool. I mean, think of all the cool play you can make with this piece? However, it turns out that there is no situation where this piece can be properly used, because white would instantly be able to capture black's juggernaut at the start of the game. In fact, it doesn't matter what piece you replace with the juggernaut, because that always will happen. The juggernaut destroys the game of chess, instead of making it more complex and interesting.
I literally cried laughing at this picture.
There are a lot of games that are full of juggernauts. I think command and conquer is notorious for having juggernauts galore in their games. I distinctly remember trying desperately to play C&C: Tiberian Sun like a competitive game a while back. As it turns out, it's really a race to see who can get multi-missiles first and blow up the command center of the other player with a perfectly placed shot. The game is pretty fun if you just play through the single-player and don't take it seriously, but there is some clearly atrocious unit design. Unfortunately, I think that unit design in Starcraft 2 suffers a bit from this syndrome as well.
So, we've established how units provide dimensions of interaction between players, and how good units add dimensions, which bad units destroy them. I think now we have a good framework with which to look at the units of Starcraft 2. While I could go over every single unit, every building, and every spell, I think that the biggest problems would be lost among the sea of information, and so I will try to focus on what I think are the biggest culprits, and the biggest general design flaws.
A) Micro-reducing abilities
I think this is the single most frustrating aspect to unit design in Starcraft 2. We've all experienced it. You set up for a big battle. You engage, and spells get thrown down everywhere. Things aren't looking so good though, and you sound the drums of retreat. Oh, but what's this? Your entire army is immobile. I guess you might as well eat popcorn and watch the spectacle of explosions and gore that once was your army. It's just so absolutely frustrating to know that you can literally do nothing.
Looking at my framework above, we can see that this scenario occurs when the juggernaut shows up and destroys all other dimensions of interaction. So, what's the juggernaut in this scenario?
1) Sentries and Forcefield:
Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. I have to credit Blizzard for making it fit into a game at all. However, the way they implemented it in beta was absolutely game-breaking. Many of you remember the days before massive units crushed forcefields. Many of you remember the days when you could trap units literally inside forcefields so they were unable to do anything. Forcefield was so destructive to the game that Blizzard had to patch in fixes for it. However, part of me thinks that they were only buckling to community complaints and didn't realize exactly what fundamental flaws forcefield had which caused it to be a source for complaint in the first place.
Forcefields cannot be interacted with by the opposing player. All you can do is try to avoid them and bait them as best you can, and hope to drain sentry energy through EMP if you're terran. It comes down to, “does he hit good forcefields or not?” There is no dance between the players, where forcefields come down and the opponent micros against them. I've seen (and been in) many games where a forcefield on the ramp literally ends the game, because there is literally nothing the other player can do about it. Force stuck outside your main? Well, you lost the game.
Umad zerg?
So what would be appropriate fixes for forcefields? Obviously we don't want them to be useless, especially early on, because protoss HAS to have them to survive some pressure attacks and allins. One suggestion I remember from beta was giving them finite hp, but no target priority (and perhaps giving them high armor would be good too to make them stronger earlier rather than later). I personally like this idea a lot since it forces micro from the other player, but does not auto-win a fight for the casting player. I'm sure there are other options out there as well.
2) Fungal Growth:
Fungal ALL THE THINGS!
Fungal Growth seems to be the favorite of zergs these days, and with good reason. It's pretty much the only spell zerg has that has any meaningful impact on the game (aside from queen macro abilities). It also is a safe spell, because if used properly it automatically ensures that the opponent can do nothing about it. Fungal's damage component alone is very strong, but the stun is absolutely game-breaking. If zerg ever is winning a fight with infestors in his army, the opponent cannot run. There's literally nothing they can do. I consider it to be pretty much a weaker version of forcefield in terms of micro-reducing power. At least infestors don't have any attack and are T2 units, so there's some opportunity cost for utilizing them.
3) Concussive Shells:
At least they don't come standard on marauders now... Concussive shells are not as dramatically micro-reducing as the two previous abilities. However, they do basically ensure that no army can ever disengage without heavy losses, without the use of some other ability, like blink or forcefield. The one redeeming quality for concussive shells is that it requires active scootnshoot micro from the terran. The reliance on APM-heavy micro does create a significant speed/skill barrier that seems to be a large factor in the skill difference between foreign and Korean terrans. It takes a lot of speed to take full advantage of this ability. I think this is a bit of a lesser evil probably because the game has been so heavily balanced around it now, but from a design perspective, it's rather atrocious.
B) Micro-less units:
These guys are part of the reason people whine about the game taking “no skill” or being “too easy.” I'm certainly one to blame at times. But is the complaint legitimate? Looking at the framework, these are units who have only one-dimension of interaction, which is that they exist. Nobody talks about using these units “smarter” or with a different “micro style”. They become a macro-level strategic tool, used to inflict blunt-force trauma on your opponent.
1) The Colossus:
"But Day[9], what if he a-moves?!?!"
I remember seeing the introduction to the colossus by Blizzard, and how they thought of him as a cliff-striding raider, who's mobility was the central feature to the unit. I don't think I've seen anyone even make use of the cliff-striding power of the colossus in months. It's just a big aoe-damage dealing sledgehammer you throw into your ball of doom.
If you look at why this occurs, it's possible to find a few distinct design considerations that contribute: The colossus is a unit that is extremely expensive. This automatically makes it a unit that is a huge risk early on. As such, it rarely appears in a stage of the game where it is the most powerful as a singular unit. The colossus is fairly fragile for its cost. While 350 total hp sounds really beefy, it is armored and damage output of units in Starcraft 2 is simply higher than its predecessor. To compare, that's 10 zerglings of hp, and 10 zerglings costs only 250 minerals. For the price, the colossus is very easily killed. The colossus cannot fight air units at all, but is vulnerable to anti-air.
So what does this mean? Well, the colossus is strongest when it is protected, surrounded by anti-air, and gotten when the cost is not so dramatic that if it dies it's automatic GG. So, you see the midgame mass colossus play.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but we have to look at the actual strength of the unit: Siege range, making static defense worthless and punishing any units that come close. AOE, negating large masses of weaker units Speed, able to keep up with any other protoss unit
This means that the colossus fits a role that no other protoss unit but the carrier does (siege range), has a powerful aoe which is shared by only 2 units (archon/storm on HT), and fits into any protoss army. Contrast that with the carrier, which is stupidly expensive, single target, and slow. Contrast again with high templar, which are slow, have no attack, limited damage output, and no siege capability. Archons are the only unit that seems to compete with colossi, but the lack of range plus a lack of power vs mechanical units makes them still not quite as desirable.
The colossus simply does everything other protoss units are designed to do, but better, and with fewer drawbacks.
As such, the colossus does not need careful attention to make sure it is maximizing its role. The only thing you have to do is keep it alive, and it kills everything with glee. As such, the burden does not rest on the protoss player to use the colossus well, but the opposing player to counter them well. The colossus does not become a conduit for interaction between players, because the interaction around the unit is very one-sided, where the protoss simply makes them and his opponent has to react to the units' very existence. As such, either colossus work or they don't. There's no battle where you go, “man, that guy had such great colossus control. If he played worse there he'd have lost it.”
And of course, colossi can actually lose their attack if they cancel their animation too fast, even though the graphic will play. This means that you're just better off attack-moving and leaving the things alone, cause micro might make them perform worse.
2) The Roach:
What's the counter to roach? More roach.
When the concept for the roach was revealed in alpha, I was very excited. The unit seemed to be the epitome of interesting design. For those of you who didn't know, the roach regenerated hp at an extremely high rate, and as such had very strong attrition power, and was very strong vs non-concentrated fire. Fighting roach required active micro from the opponent to focus down individual roaches, and keeping your roach alive as long as possible and abusing the high regeneration rate to rotate hurt roaches back was especially rewarding. Badly micro'd roach, or badly micro'd units vs roach were both vastly inferior to well micro'd units. This is exactly what makes units interesting.
Then when beta rolled around the roach became just a high hp ranged unit that seemed to require no micro to use. There was no active regeneration until hive tech. It was just a really lackluster unit. Since that time, the active regeneration upgrade simply disappeared, and the burrow and burrow-move mechanics turned out to be insignificant and gimmicky. I'm personally incredibly disappointed in this unit, because Blizzard literally took a great idea and destroyed it.
The roach suffers from a lot of the same issues the colossus does: -Roach outperform hydralisks as a ranged attacker in almost every circumstance, since they are faster, have nearly double the hp, and cost significantly less. -Roach are the only zerg unit before ultralisks that can take any sort of AOE punishment at all.
As such, roach supplant a lot of the zerg army in many circumstances (ZvZ and ZvP especially). We really don't see anything in terms of a balanced force between lings, blings, hydra, and roach with infestor and air support. Instead we just see a lot of roach + support. Now, I am not saying that people only use roach. However, when they DO use roach, they don't just add a few roach to another army. The roach is not a unit that adds any new dimension to an army, it simply supplants already existing units, in the sense that any role the roach is filling in an army can also be filled by another unit that zerg has, but likely worse.
3) The Thor:
This unit just screams “DONT MICRO ME.” It's slow, with slow responsiveness, clunky attack animations, and really poor targeting. There's only one thing you can do with thors which is focus or cannon really large targets. There is no move/shoot with something that clunky and slow. There's no repositioning such a unit in battle.
It seems like even Blizzard is so disgusted with how horribly this unit turned out that they're scrapping it for HotS, and as such I don't want to dwell on it further.
4) The Phoenix:
Those of you in beta should remember when this unit was given its wonderful shoot-while-moving ability. We all desperately wanted something micro-able, and what does Blizzard do? They introduce one of the goofiest mechanics in Starcraft 2. I'm perfectly okay with the unit itself, and I think graviton lift is a very interesting ability, but the implementation of move-shoot is just so embarrassingly silly and anti-micro that it deserves a mention here. Move-shoot does not mean a unit that automatically shoots while you move it around. That removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot? It's just a bad mechanic.
C) No Zone Control Units
Not that type of zone.
Lastly, we come to the most glaring weakness in Starcraft 2. There is almost no way to hold ground in this game. There are several contributing mechanics that exacerbate this problem (warpgates, no high ground defender's advantage), but the overwhelming ailment is the complete and utter disregard for positional units that Blizzard seems to have adopted for this game.
But why is this such a weakness, according to our framework? Well, the complexity of interaction between units that exist not to kill other units but to control terrain is far greater than units which exist only to blow things up. Simply, the army-level interaction between move-shoot-kill units is very one dimensional. Units smash into each other and the better force wins. However, area control units are much more interesting, because they turn army interaction into a territory control battle. The goal of territory control units is to cut off important routes and gain more map control.
Map control allows other aspects of the game to take over: Macro, harassment, and scouting. More map control yields more bases open for the taking, more routes by which you can harass, and more vision of the map to combat enemy army movements, expansions, and harassment. When armies exist not to kill each other, but to control terrain, the game shifts more towards those three elements, and less away from “who has the better army?” and big deathball fights. Big deathball fights are one-dimensional army-level interaction, whereas map control is multidimensional.
1) Siege Tanks
Too bad I made immortals.
What happened to these guys? It seems like literally every other unit in the game is designed to counter them. We have dragoons with blink, charging zealots, dragoons with some kind of tankrape cannon that evaporates them like it's their job (oh wait it is), marauders, voidrays, phoenix that can lift them up even when sieged (even though I swear they are clamped to the ground), broodlords which cause them to splash each other, and more.
Tanks are just far more of the glass cannon role than they used to be, and because armies are so much faster and higher dps, the window for getting in position and sieging up is extremely small. This makes them just too much of a liability in many cases, especially vs protoss. The designers simply created too many ways to kill tanks for tanks to hold positions by themselves.
Baneling mines are some of the most enjoyable things to do in Starcraft 2. They can be incredibly cost effective vs marines, and are one of the few map control devices that exist. However, they are gimmicky, since a flub leads to them doing nothing, and they cannot be reused, and as such they don't provide true permanent map control.
This brings me to the use of burrow and the unimportance of detection. In Broodwar, the infamous lurker was the powerhouse map control unit for zerg. While many players miss the lurker, I do not suggest bringing the lurker back into Starcraft 2, at least directly. Rather, I think the lurker brought certain key aspects to bear that made it such a phenomenal unit.
The lurker was a purely micro centric unit. It was 100% worthless burrowed in the wrong place, and superbly powerful in the right one. This dichotomy based on position is one of the most essential components of map control-oriented gameplay. The lurker also forced detection, something only the DT and banshee adequately now, leaving zerg in the dust. Burrow banes, burrowed roach, and infestors simply do not force detection, because they are not active threats while burrowed.
The burrow/detection interaction provides a new conduit through which players can interact. Players were scared to move out once lurkers were on the field without great scouting and ready detection, because they could lose their entire army. Even if you move out vs burrow banelings, it's virtually impossible to lose your entire army, because the banes can only kill so many units.
What zerg needs is more of an active burrow-based map control mechanism. Fortunately, from the HotS preview, it seems like burrow-banelings will be able to move underground at hive tech. This still is far too late into the game for a detection based map control device. Some way for infestors or roach to be active threats while burrowed would be a major improvement (or moving that proposed baneling upgrade to lair tech) would do wonders for stabilizing zerg map control and making them less reliant on active armies.
3) Static Defense and the Non-Necessity of Siege
Look Ma! No units!
Static defense in Starcraft 2 is extremely weak at actually defending anything. The strength of static defense is supposed to be raw stopping power, in exchange for absolutely no mobility. The idea of static defense is that you sacrifice map control for very cost efficient defense. However, due to the lack of any meaningful map control in Starcraft 2, the opportunity cost for static defense simply isn't very high, and as such, the cost efficiency had to be lowered, to give an incentive to players to make mobile armies and kill each other. That seems to be the direction Blizzard went with in designing this game. There is a huge emphasis on making armies to go kill people, and very little emphasis on actually staying alive.
Naturally, given the weakness of static defense in general, the universal stopping power of defense is much lower than it could be, and that leads to the high level of coinflip losses to allins, because defense is so weak you cannot invest in large amounts of the wrong defense. In addition, since there is little reason to rely on static defense to stay alive, the role of siege units is dramatically reduced, which contributes dramatically to the big deathball army-movement, and one punch victories.
Buffing static defense however has led to stronger cheese (stronger bunkers and stronger cannons, and even spine crawler/queen rushes in beta). This creates a strange situation for us. I think the appropriate response is to make static defense more upgradable, as to avoid the use of strong static defense as cheese early, but without sacrificing stopping power. The planetary fortress is actually a strong example of such defense, and I think it offers a strong incentive towards map control style play, where you don't have to rely on large armies to hold position.
In Conclusion:
Starcraft 2 suffers from unit design that limits meaningful interaction between players. Much of the interaction is one-sided, and as such, the game is less about being the other player than about beating the units themselves. The lack of meaningful map control contributes to a very unstable gameplay, and leads to large-battle centric games. If HotS is to solve these major problems, it needs to implement more micro-able units, which function as distinct and unique conduits with multiple dimensions of interaction between players. Adding more flat units will only further supplant existing units and destabilize the game.
I like the part where you bring up command and conquer as having juggernauts in their games. Dune2000 was the same way, Mass Devestators anyone?
My point being, you brought it up, and the original blizz team has been fired for a while, and dustin browder was the brains behind C&C series, and now we're seeing the same "juggernaut" behavior in sc2 and hes on the top of the sc2 team..
It can't be coincidence, can it?
at this point, I'd like to point out the atriciousness of having to deal with force fields with thors and ultralisks, if you're not P.
These units are basically "must build" vs anyone planning to fight someone using mass sentries. the problem is, the mass sentry stalker zealot all in comes out so much sooner than ultras in particular, while terran can wall off and simply sit in bunkers and actually abuse FF for themselves via tank. you never see FF used against terran like its used against zerg for auto-wins. fast Teching to Ultra to bust FFs is such fragile and abusable play against the zerg doing it. Lets face facts that most of the early and midgame zerg army that can actually fight other armies is all ground based, so you NEED to break through FFs,
I like your section on roaches. It was very clear to me from examining them and reading their "flavor text' they were designed to get in there, attrition the enemy some and soak up damage, and then run off to regen for the next battle or for continuance of the current battle. Unfortunately the way the game currently plays out, their high population cost and all the loss/nerf of armor and regen means they're 1 time use, so they don't even perform their intended role anymore. they just steal other roles and perform mildly above average at them to be more worth building at most times than ling hydra. the population cost means they're in too few number to actually Screen effectively vs stalker or marines, so they get focused down singularly easier, making the idea of attack and retreat regen less viable. then they actually lost all their regen powers above ground and their armor as well. Roaches were imbalanced, it is true, but they destroyed the unit and it doesn't have any intrinsically good use. Roach vs Z and P automatically, no roaches vs T. why is this?
On your section of tanks, a massed zerg army in brood war could deal with tanks in brood war because of no smartfire and slow firing time. your zerg units actually had huge numbers. zerg has more or less equal numbers vs T or P in sc2, that is if they don't wahnt to die from the smartfire and fast damaging AoE frm P or T for using lings. lings still have their place, but they're much harder to use efficiently, and maybe thats a good thing, however this leads back to "why not just use roaches in this scenario".
Can we have a civil discussion without anyone talking about how this is a BW vs SC2 argument/balance whine/how much the devs suck/blizz sucks/omg mods close this thread etc.?
There is C) in the game, but alot of it relies on A). The problem with alot of A) is that it has quite a bit of offensive applications too. FFs for defense can equally be used for offense and harassment. That's good, it adds variety to the game. Everyone wants to see abilities that have multiple use etc. etc. But the problem is that FFs are too powerful early game/early game aggression.
BW had stasis which pretty much made your units useless as well. However, that came out after 10 mins into the game, where terran would have/should have Vessels with EMP and goliath. Terran would also counter this with good spreading of tanks.
As for zone of control, Thors do impose a zone of control on mutalisks. A few thors will deter any mutas from coming into your base. But ofc that is just air, and that's just having ridiculous amount of DPS. (JOOKTO NOOOOOO)
As for static defense, I tend to disagree. Turrets seem to be better than their BW counterparts, and Planetary Fortresses tend to punish someone who has the multitask/game sense to figure out that a base is "undefended", sends a hit squad of a couple units while some other engagement is underway to damage an economy somewhere. Bunkers do their job, cannons are better than their BW counterparts too (6 lings can't kill a cannon anymore iirc). I honestly think it's better to have the player defend his base with units. BW units did an exceptionally better job than static defenses ever did (think PvZ where a base had to be defended with a few reavers/HTs with storm, or TvP, a few tanks behind a wall/spider mines)
On January 12 2012 13:05 BronzeLeague wrote: About your problem with armies being able to disengage, this may be more of stylistic choice, but i disagree that someone who makes a mistake should be able to get away with it scott free. I think that they should be punished for playing poorly. If you charge a protoss and you are so vastly outnumbered that he has the option to use his forcefields to do anything but survive, then you have made a huge mistake and do not deserve to get away. Likewise with marauders. If you make a micro mistake and engage a terran that you do not want to engage, you should pay for that mistake. Concussive shells allow terran to pick off a few units without being able to instantly kill your army.
I would just like to point out that, engaging and then retreating under fire is actually punishment in an of itself because any sort of range or AoE is shelling you the entire time. You don't need to in addition to that, also trap the entire army. It becomes to binary/ all or nothing which leads to giant stand-offs and then one giant commitment to see who wins the game. The ability to nibble at the edge and whittle down forces to find a better position is far superior as it promotes a greater incentive to engage.
On January 12 2012 13:05 BronzeLeague wrote: With regards to AOE, it is very powerful, but perhaps that is a good thing. Like the thor, storms are both very powerful and comparatively immobile, but maybe that is a good thing. It forces the player not using the aoe to showcase his controll by dodging a potentially game ending blow. Maybe sometimes we need strong immobile things for a speedy and daring micro player to barely dodge. Just think about how tense you get watching lings and banelings micro against each other. Don't you get some of that same tension every time a pack of mutas gets near a thor or a templar is storming near a zerg army?
I would argue AoE has actually be nerfed like crazy. It's balanced in SC2, but compare the power of AoE in BW to SC2. I know I always harp on this, but storms actually killed stuff (including workers) in one storm or a second to catch the rest of the workers.
In regards to your muta comment. The actual mechanics in SC2 prevent muta control from being as effective as its counterpart used to be (maybe combined with Battlenet latency.)
One thing that someone else mentioned was that Collosi were in fact micro-eable. Well they are in that they can be moved, if you call that micro. And you can put them in a shuttle, but the sort of choice in targetting is pretty limited. Compared to the sort of decision making involved in: Spoiler to conserve space + Show Spoiler +
Again ignore that it's a BW unit. Look at the decision making involved in whether you hit the forward tank, back tank, further back tank. Each target has a significantly different amount of splash damage it's going to do.
But if you get to close, your shuttle might get sniped, or maybe the tanks might fire on you. Even paying attention to which way those tank turrets were facing made a difference because it took a little time to readjust to fire. Furthermore with overkill, you could bait the tanks into firing with a zealot, then quickly drop the reaver, pick your best shot, scoop up your reaver before the next volley and retreat.
And because reaver actually took up space, it made a difference where you dropped it off when the shuttle returned it to the front lines. Too far back- not going to fire. Too far forward, something's going to rush in and snipe it or the shuttle. In the middle, need to move the army around to make room for it.
With the amount of different factors involved, skilled reaver control could tear apart an unprepared terran player (or Protoss or Zerg player.)
So sure, you can move the collosi back and forth a bit and focus fire on certain units, but the difference isn't nearly so significant or rewarding.
Most importantly, Reavers were allowed to be ridiculously powerful, because they were hard to use effectively. Basically no more than 2 shuttles of 4 reavers else the cost-effectiveness goes down as you couldn't micro them enough to get their full potential. Only late game would really see more than that vs Zerg. Any easy to use, A move or smart casting unit has to be nerfed so that it's balanced because left on alone it performs almost as well as being microed. Skilled reaver use increased it's effectiveness sevenfold, but wasn't imbalanced because it required babysitting.
Oh and they also worked for the easy to use/hard to master philosophy of Blizzard. They still worked really well as 15APM newbie. Just upgrade the 10 scarab shot and damage and sit them behind your 30 cannons and let the newbie zerg who doesn't-know-how-to-use-Dark-Swarm come. They were fun defensively for noobs and awesome to behold for the pro's.
loved the read and i agree with you as a Zerg player. i would have to add immortals to the list tho. Zerg n Terran have armored units (roach n tanks/marauder) so the toss counter is a super tanking unit, the immortal.
This post is quite good. I also don't see much if any of it as balance whine.
One of the parts that really interested me was about how microing the collosus around actually decreases its usefulness because it is unclear if the attack does damage despite an animation playing.
Related to lurkers and using burrowed units for map control, I think that the fact that the zerg army is balance around mostly units that cannot shoot up brings up problems with the units that require detection. All current mobile detectors are air units and so there is usually not a risk of losing the detection except to Mutas. This makes it easier to move out against burrowed units without fear of losing detection and being stranded mid map. Just something I was thinking about.
First off, thanks for the awesome post. I love reading these in-depth views on the game.
One thing I'd like to point out is with the Sentry. You say that once the battle has commenced (PvT in this example) that FF takes away micro. You didn't mention the fact that Terrans have been getting into the habit lately of picking up the trapped units in their Medivacs and dropping them behind the FFs. This is quite micro intensive and actually renders the FFs useless aside from being 'safe' until they run out. What has happened in this situation? Protoss has lost energy which may need to be replaced through building more Sentries, and the Terran has lost hardly anything. This moves on to more interesting unit placement from Protoss because there's the possibility you could then snipe the Medivac(s), but of course you don't want your Stalkers getting too close.
Of course Zerg too could do this with their number of ovies they have, and we have seen similar things with Baneling drops and whatnot. So for me, this puts Fungal aheady of FF as the number one most micro limiting ability.
Would definitely like to hear any thoughts to the contrary of this, cause for me it creates awesome micro situations, and anything coming pre-medivacs is more than likely to be a cheese or all in.
Wait, you're complaining that Tanks aren't powerful enough? Don't they already define two matchups and serve crucial roles in powerful all-ins for the third? The only useful thing about superpowerful Siege Tanks is that I always know who to root for thanks to them: Zerg in SC2 and Protoss in SCBW.
I really hate the Colossus though. If you want area control, just look back at Warp-in Storm. Anywhere you had Pylon coverage you could bring considerable force to bear at the cost of 150 gas a shot, but when moving out of Pylon coverage you were vulnerable. Those were the best days of spectated PvT. But because lategame Colossus/High Templar was too powerful, they chose to remove Khaydarin Amulet to save the Colossus. And then they nerfed EMP to compensate for crippled Templar. They should have just killed the Colossus and kept the Templar/Ghost dynamic - Warp-in Storms providing a considerable defensive advantage, but powerful Ghosts picking them off if they tried to be agressive. Then the game would really have been about slowly pushing Pylon coverage across the map. Gah. It could have been so beautiful, but instead it was killed off in its prime. So sad.
Colossi are also responsible for the existence of the Corrupter, another incredibly boring unit. You can't tell me Corrupters exist for any purpose other than countering Colossi (and making Brood Lords).
On January 12 2012 13:05 BronzeLeague wrote: About your problem with armies being able to disengage, this may be more of stylistic choice, but i disagree that someone who makes a mistake should be able to get away with it scott free. I think that they should be punished for playing poorly. If you charge a protoss and you are so vastly outnumbered that he has the option to use his forcefields to do anything but survive, then you have made a huge mistake and do not deserve to get away. Likewise with marauders. If you make a micro mistake and engage a terran that you do not want to engage, you should pay for that mistake. Concussive shells allow terran to pick off a few units without being able to instantly kill your army.
I would just like to point out that, engaging and then retreating under fire is actually punishment in an of itself because any sort of range or AoE is shelling you the entire time. You don't need to in addition to that, also trap the entire army. It becomes to binary/ all or nothing which leads to giant stand-offs and then one giant commitment to see who wins the game. The ability to nibble at the edge and whittle down forces to find a better position is far superior as it promotes a greater incentive to engage.
On January 12 2012 13:05 BronzeLeague wrote: With regards to AOE, it is very powerful, but perhaps that is a good thing. Like the thor, storms are both very powerful and comparatively immobile, but maybe that is a good thing. It forces the player not using the aoe to showcase his controll by dodging a potentially game ending blow. Maybe sometimes we need strong immobile things for a speedy and daring micro player to barely dodge. Just think about how tense you get watching lings and banelings micro against each other. Don't you get some of that same tension every time a pack of mutas gets near a thor or a templar is storming near a zerg army?
I would argue AoE has actually be nerfed like crazy. It's balanced in SC2, but compare the power of AoE in BW to SC2. I know I always harp on this, but storms actually killed stuff (including workers) in one storm or a second to catch the rest of the workers.
In regards to your muta comment. The actual mechanics in SC2 prevent muta control from being as effective as its counterpart used to be (maybe combined with Battlenet lag.)
One thing that someone else mentioned was that Collosi were in fact micro-eable. Well they are in that they can be moved, if you call that micro. And you can put them in a shuttle, but the sort of choice in targetting is pretty limited. Compared to the sort of decision making involved in: Spoiler to conserve space + Show Spoiler +
Again ignore that it's a BW unit. Look at the decision making involved in whether you hit the forward tank, back tank, further back tank. Each target has a significantly different amount of splash damage it's going to do.
But if you get to close, your shuttle might get sniped, or maybe the tanks might fire on you. Even paying attention to which way those tank turrets were facing made a difference because it took a little time to readjust to fire. Furthermore with overkill, you could bait the tanks into firing with a zealot, then quickly drop the reaver, pick your best shot, scoop up your reaver before the next volley and retreat.
And because reaver actually took up space, it made a difference where you dropped it off when the shuttle returned it to the front lines. Too far back- not going to fire. Too far forward, something's going to rush in and snipe it or the shuttle. In the middle, need to move the army around to make room for it.
With the amount of different factors involved, skilled reaver control could tear apart an unprepared terran player (or Protoss or Zerg player.)
So sure, you can move the collosi back and forth a bit and focus fire on certain units, but the difference isn't nearly so significant or rewarding.
Most importantly, Reavers were allowed to be ridiculously powerful, because they were hard to use effectively. Basically no more than 2 shuttles of 4 reavers else the cost-effectiveness goes down as you couldn't micro them enough to get their full potential. Only late game would really see more than that vs Zerg. Any easy to use, A move or smart casting unit has to be nerfed so that it's balanced because left on alone it performs almost as well as being microed. Skilled reaver use increased it's effectiveness sevenfold, but wasn't imbalanced because it required babysitting.
Really well said. I love that clip of the reaver thread, it really illustrates the amount of decision making involved in using not just a reaver, but a shuttle as well.
On January 12 2012 13:54 Fanatic-Templar wrote: Wait, you're complaining that Tanks aren't powerful enough? Don't they already define two matchups and serve crucial roles in powerful all-ins for the third? The only useful thing about superpowerful Siege Tanks is that I always know who to root for thanks to them: Zerg in SC2 and Protoss in SCBW.
I really hate the Colossus though. If you want area control, just look back at Warp-in Storm. Anywhere you had Pylon coverage you could bring considerable force to bear at the cost of 150 gas a shot, but when moving out of Pylon coverage you were vulnerable. Those were the best days of spectated PvT. But because lategame Colossus/High Templar was too powerful, they chose to remove Khaydarin Amulet to save the Colossus. And then they nerfed EMP to compensate for crippled Templar. They should have just killed the Colossus and kept the Templar/Ghost dynamic - Warp-in Storms providing a considerable defensive advantage, but powerful Ghosts picking them off if they tried to be agressive. Then the game would really have been about slowly pushing Pylon coverage across the map. Gah. It could have been so beautiful, but instead it was killed off in its prime. So sad.
Colossi are also responsible for the existence of the Corrupter, another incredibly boring unit. You can't tell me Corrupters exist for any purpose other than countering Colossi (and making Brood Lords).
Warp-in Storms was pretty ridiculous. That really makes it almost impossible to do counterattacks against toss. That's going to lead to less interesting games in general.
Your solution is actually make less options in the game so templar are so much better? I mean templar are already pretty damn awesome against Terran and it's very common to see chargelot/templar even now. Blizzard clearly made sensible choices in those nerfs.
Though I will definitely agree that corruptors are boring and lame.
I logged in just to say that the side of me that is obsessed with game design absolutely loves this post. Across a lot of games things like "uncounterable action denying effects" (the most popular example of which is a "stun") such as force fields and fungal growth are extremely frustrating for players to have to play against. There is nothing more frustrating than being stunlocked in place because your units won't do what you tell them to do - and a unit's responsiveness to your intent is extremely important in creating a fulfilling game experience. As an example of a failure of units to respond to intent properly is the game Company of Heroes, where the squad pathing AI would often cause the squad to stop and have a picnic (metaphorically) before they retreat after you punch the retreat button with the force of a thousand supernovas - this led to a lot of frustration to a lot of players in an otherwise very interesting game.
Again, kudos on this post and very good examples. I feel like I could nitpick a bit, but instead I'll be more constructive by recommending a book I greatly enjoyed on this topic. If you haven't already read it I highly recommend the book "The art of game design / a book of lenses" by Jesse Schell.
Really excellent thread, and it's really obvious just how battle-centred the game is rather than strategy-centred. At the moment some of the only REAL positioning tools are the tank, PF, and forcefield (the threat of which can force an attacker away from certain paths or else risk a game-changing battle in poor position, essentially "creating terrain").
Agree with most of the post though these are issues raised before. I think the one component you're missing is talk about "snow-ball" units. In particular, I think comparing Mutas in PvZ between the games makes quite clear that Mutas in sc2 pvz have serious issues. Somewhat the same can be said about collosi (4-5 collosi and htings melt though i think they're more "solveable" than mutas though still as you say undesireable). Also think you can make a technical point about fungal vs storm/ general utility of spellcasters in the whole design of races but over all nice post.
*Maybe the casters would be a balance discussion but I think fungal deserves a thorough examination in the context of the whole race.
On January 12 2012 14:19 Sabu113 wrote: Agree with most of the post though these are issues raised before. I think the one component you're missing is talk about "snow-ball" units. In particular, I think comparing Mutas in PvZ between the games makes quite clear that Mutas in sc2 pvz have serious issues. Somewhat the same can be said about collosi (4-5 collosi and htings melt though i think they're more "solveable" than mutas though still as you say undesireable). Also think you can make a technical point about fungal vs storm/ general utility of spellcasters in the whole design of races but over all nice post.
All air snowballs because of the air stacking effect. There's just pretty bad area control for p anti air.
I disagree with OP mostly. Examples cited take things to extremes and fail to make coherent points sometimes.
Sure the chess game with all pawns is more boring than regular chess, and sure the chess game with the Juggernaut is more boring than regular chess, but there ARE pawns in chess and there ARE queens in chess. That is the nature of things. Just like there are roaches and colossi.
Not being able to retreat is frustrating, but Sentries and Marauders aren't the only cases of this. They may be important mentions because these units have special abilities that remove the retreat ability, but other units have traits that make retreat impossible. Most of the time when a Terran pushes out against Zerg, he knows that his push must do damage because it isn't coming back home (thinking zerglings here). When doing drops against a Zerg, often they are one-way because the way mutalisks control the skies.
I also disagree about the phoenix. It's ability to move and shoot is different but gives it unique ability to kite units normally unkitable.
I agree on some things like the removal of the thor being a good thing, and about seige tanks being too weak, and space control in general being too weak.
Mmmm... could people do anything about Stasis in BW? EMP the arbiter before it got close enough to cast spell. Kinda the same with sentry/HT and ghost battle, except ghosts can cloak and there's no mass cloak for protoss :O
Could people do anything about Dark Swarm? Get your fucking units out of the cloud and spread out units + splsh dmg attacks
There's dance matches with HT and ghosts, graviton beams and choosing which pheonix to do it with, spreading out units to minimize AoE damage from storm or fungals. I think there's actually a lot of micro involved. These micro-reducing abilities are actually promoting more micro from both players.
Yet I do think FF should be changed, or maybe the toughness of protoss units should make a comeback because early game is just so sentry dependent, even with static defense with forge + cannons.
And I agree with map control and just slamming two armies against each other. I'd like to see more in depth gameplay than just massing units and ending it with one battle.
On January 12 2012 13:54 Fanatic-Templar wrote: Wait, you're complaining that Tanks aren't powerful enough? Don't they already define two matchups and serve crucial roles in powerful all-ins for the third? The only useful thing about superpowerful Siege Tanks is that I always know who to root for thanks to them: Zerg in SC2 and Protoss in SCBW.
I really hate the Colossus though. If you want area control, just look back at Warp-in Storm. Anywhere you had Pylon coverage you could bring considerable force to bear at the cost of 150 gas a shot, but when moving out of Pylon coverage you were vulnerable. Those were the best days of spectated PvT. But because lategame Colossus/High Templar was too powerful, they chose to remove Khaydarin Amulet to save the Colossus. And then they nerfed EMP to compensate for crippled Templar. They should have just killed the Colossus and kept the Templar/Ghost dynamic - Warp-in Storms providing a considerable defensive advantage, but powerful Ghosts picking them off if they tried to be agressive. Then the game would really have been about slowly pushing Pylon coverage across the map. Gah. It could have been so beautiful, but instead it was killed off in its prime. So sad.
Colossi are also responsible for the existence of the Corrupter, another incredibly boring unit. You can't tell me Corrupters exist for any purpose other than countering Colossi (and making Brood Lords).
Warp-in Storms was pretty ridiculous. That really makes it almost impossible to do counterattacks against toss. That's going to lead to less interesting games in general.
Your solution is actually make less options in the game so templar are so much better? I mean templar are already pretty damn awesome against Terran and it's very common to see chargelot/templar even now. Blizzard clearly made sensible choices in those nerfs.
Though I will definitely agree that corruptors are boring and lame.
Except you miss the point. Even if Warp-in Storms had been too powerful (which I disagree with), that's a balance issue, not a design one, which is the point of this thread.
You say Warp-in Storms make it almost impossible to do counterattacks against the Protoss. That may be true, but that's the entire point. Because the flip side that you're ignoring, is that they're exceedingly weak on the offensive. They're slow, they're vulnerable, and they have no capacity for prolonged combat - once they've blown their energy, they're out of the action. And mind you that this would mean reversing the Ghost nerfs - not only the blast area nerf, but also letting them take out all their target's energy instead of just 100. Hell, let them take out all the Shields too, as in Brood War. And if it isn't balanced, that can be worked on. The point of this thread is that this makes for a more interesting game dynamic.
So in this case, it may be almost impossible to counterattack the Protoss, but that's the point: just because you've won the deathball engagement doesn't mean you've won. And the flipside is the same: just because the Protoss won doesn't mean he can kill you, because instead of Colossi he has slow, vulnerable Templar to try to attack you. This leads to the desired effect: vying for area control. Pushing into area the Protoss controls is an uphill battle because of the Warp-in Storms, but moving out of that area means the Protoss is vulnerable to getting simply wiped out by EMPs. Thus, the Protoss would have to push out with Pylon coverage in order to be agressive, and the Terran would be responsible for taking out Pylons much like Protoss/Terrans need to take out Tumours in their vZ matchup.
Incidentally, that's one thing I'm disappointed the OP didn't bring up. The Creep mechanics in SC2 are one of the most brilliant things in the sequel. If there's one thing I wish could be retrofitted into Brood War, it's Creep mechanics.
Anyways, "impossible to do counterattacks" is the way Protoss have lived with PvT for years. In Brood War, the way you did a counterattack was to take your most expensive, end-tech caster, suicide it into the enemy base, Recall your army while praying to Adun you weren't over a Spider Minefield, and hope you managed to deal enough damage before your sacrificial army was inevitably wiped out to the last man. Your "impossible counterattacks" at least instantly cost the Protoss hundreds of gas on the spot. And it's not like a MULE where the resource acquisition is merely delayed. That gas is never coming back.
On January 12 2012 15:11 Fanatic-Templar wrote: Incidentally, that's one thing I'm disappointed the OP didn't bring up. The Creep mechanics in SC2 are one of the most brilliant things in the sequel. If there's one thing I wish could be retrofitted into Brood War, it's Creep mechanics.
I didn't bring it up because it's actually a good mechanic. The post was long as hell already, and I didn't want to rant about all the things I did like, because that's just circlejerking. That kind of stuff belongs in blogs. If it works, ignoring it is good enough.
Great article, and it's not stale because the problems still exist.
We can't help but make comparisons to BW, when SC2 took BW spells and made them less dynamic. Had the spells been completely different, we may not make comparisons, but since they are so similar, we cannot ignore them.
EG - In BW, a Fungal LIke ability SLOWED units, so they could still survive if micro'd well enough. EG - Casting animation for EMP made it more predictive and reliant on intuition, making the skill ceiling higher and micro more exciting on both sides. EG - In BW, there were fewer high-supply units and overlapping units, so armies felt bigger and were bigger
On January 12 2012 15:11 Fanatic-Templar wrote: Incidentally, that's one thing I'm disappointed the OP didn't bring up. The Creep mechanics in SC2 are one of the most brilliant things in the sequel. If there's one thing I wish could be retrofitted into Brood War, it's Creep mechanics.
I didn't bring it up because it's actually a good mechanic. The post was long as hell already, and I didn't want to rant about all the things I did like, because that's just circlejerking. That kind of stuff belongs in blogs. If it works, ignoring it is good enough.
Pretty good all around sum up. Hope blizzard understands that adding more micro opportunities, and raising the skill ceiling isn't necessarily making the game like bw, thus hurting their feelings/egos.
And I mean it, sometimes they are scared about even talking about things related to bw, kinda like insecure guys.
One thing I am a bit confused on is in the previous post, you complain about deathball play. But in this post, you point out abillities that you don't like in their current state that happen to be very effective against deathball play (fungal, and force fields).
I don't think there is such thing as a unit or abillity that discourages micro. I agree with many design posts on how they could change an abillity due to its damage and/or current effect on gameplay, but I feel like you are only looking at the abillity from one point and not seeing the bigger picture. For colossi in deathballs, the only micro you have to do for the unit itself, it position it correctly, focus fire on important units, and/or make sure that its splash is optimized. But what about defending the colossi? what about making sure stalkers defend it from vikings? How many stalkers should you commit to anti-air and how many should you commit to ground? It seems to encourage army micro more that singular unit micro.
Some of your posts also seem to be focused more on aesthetics on how you would see a battle rather than a spot on post. Roachs for example, require the same amount of micro in groups as do hydras in broodwar, yet you dislike them because, they are not IMBA anymore (if you think 2 armor, above ground regeneration, 1 supply roach is balanced, i don't know what to tell you), the hydralisk is not seen enough (which is true, but I feel like they will see a boost in use with new stratagies, better micro, and the HOTS speed upgrade), and because they seem to be the only unit massed in certain attacks. Similar scenerios are for static defenses, and the phoenix.
I can understand where you're coming from and agree with some of what you said, but perhaps you should reevaluate more carefully some of your points from a holistic point of view. A good example brought up is your seige tank example. seige tanks are far from useless in map control, especially in TvT, TvZ, and TvMVP.
I alwasy knew colossus was bad for a reason, now Im sure it has to do with walking over friendly units. It has no "bump" or "dither" against other units, it has no need to jockey for positioning, and oh yeah, it fires ridiculously fast with high damage for good AoE efficiency. Its a problem unit precisely because it inverts all the rules the reaver ran by:
slow, high damage, slow RoF, can get blocked so it cant get in range, has to maneuver to get in range. Colossus? As long as there's ground, just A click and it gets in range instantly and starts firing. Does not impede your units and is not impeded, so it can always apply damage. Terran and Zerg just don't have a unit like that. No race had a unit like this in brood war.
On January 12 2012 14:29 freeshooter wrote: Mmmm... could people do anything about Stasis in BW? EMP the arbiter before it got close enough to cast spell. Kinda the same with sentry/HT and ghost battle, except ghosts can cloak and there's no mass cloak for protoss :O
I agree to a certain extent with the OP, though I think that some points are rather exaggerated.
One key point the OP is missing (or at least fails to emphasize) though is how the design of one unit/building can have a chain reaction on the rest. The OP hints at this with the "juggernaut" archetype, but it goes further than that.
It's easy to see this on the protoss side. Warp gates force gateway units to be weaker, which results in 2 things: 1) weaker gateway units are one reason warp gate needs to be better than gateways; and 2) weak gateway units necessitate a very strong higher tech unit, and with the focus on balanced play on all leagues, this unit needs to be a-moveable. Hence the colossus.
The colossus in turn forces other races to have very strong anti-armored-air, namely vikings and corruptors. They are so strong that they contribute the general deficiencies of capital ships, especially carriers. In fact, corruptors feel so out of place in the game - they don't have good synergy with any other unit, and were added merely to counter very specific units.
I'm simplifying things a lot here - this obviously isn't the whole picture - but it provides a good example of a how one bad apple can have more significant-than-expected impact on the game as a whole.
With that said, a bad apple can often be turned into a good one without even touching it, namely by tweaking counters or synergies of other units.
On January 12 2012 14:29 freeshooter wrote: Mmmm... could people do anything about Stasis in BW? EMP the arbiter before it got close enough to cast spell. Kinda the same with sentry/HT and ghost battle, except ghosts can cloak and there's no mass cloak for protoss :O
You're pretty invalid by the way.
Arbiters cloak all the things.
He was talking about Starcraft 2, for which protoss have very little access to cloak via the Mamaship, who is going to be completely removed soon anyway.
Great article/post. I agree with what's been said.
My two biggest issues are probably:
While the roach still has some micro (I'm like the one one that seems to micro them), I HATE what Blizzard did to the unit in more ways than one.
Colossus and to a lesser degree force fields are really dumb designs (as they currently are — not as they could be)
It would be interesting to hear what the OP has to say about the HotS units, even though it's very speculative. I would read what others have to say about HotS, but 12 pages is hard to go through.
The viper is an obvious unit that removes control from a player, but I don't know how big of an issue it will be. For instance, broodlings were not really used in brood war, and this ability is pretty much like broodlings, just with less range, and no instant kill of the target. The biggest factor is probably that it can target any unit as opposed to broodling though. Many people seem open to having the viper as it gives zerg a way to deal with crazy tank formations, or maybe colossus as well.
So pretty much every new unit sucks hm? Why don't you spam around how zerglings, zealots or marines are boring units... (well I know why. they were in broodwar and are therefore untouchable) Why don't you go and learn about compositions and metagame, before posting crap like: "What's the counter to roach? More roach."... add some hydras, infestors, go and basetrade with mutalisks, ultralisks... wtf men. Uninformed and then pretending to do a serious post...
and then this crap about siege tanks and no zone control and micro reducing units... Sure, if I have broodwar siege tanks that can deal with everything, I don't need micro reducing abilities in a game, because when you step somewhere a siege tank is placed, there is nothing left to micro anymore. All that QQ about Fungals... if I have infestors around and a terran runs into me, then it is "micro reducing, OP bullshit design", but if I run into siege tanks, it is "zone control".
I understand your points with forcefields but if you compare it to chess there are cases where a queen and knight are guarding a few of the opponents pieces and you cant move them in the same way as well. Luckily in sc2 and chess you have SO many dynamics involved that when you run into one of these unit reducing skill intentions you end up creating a new skill intention in the dimensions of decision making and strategy (considering in sc2 you cant play the game perfectly even with 10000 apm) there are plenty of other unique choices you look towards at that point.
I think this miss in foresight in your arguments is extremely detrimental and flawed to such an extent that I can't take your opinions seriously because of outright bias towards the resultants of objectified assumptions you've made on game design.
Nice read I tend to agree on most points, especially about the lack of zone/map control. Its pretty glaring when every second game is some sort of base race where armies do not engage each other. The other big offender in my opinion is tier 1 units being far too valuable and versatile for their cost.
On January 12 2012 14:27 Carmine wrote: I disagree with OP mostly. Examples cited take things to extremes and fail to make coherent points sometimes.
Sure the chess game with all pawns is more boring than regular chess, and sure the chess game with the Juggernaut is more boring than regular chess, but there ARE pawns in chess and there ARE queens in chess. That is the nature of things. Just like there are roaches and colossi.
Not being able to retreat is frustrating, but Sentries and Marauders aren't the only cases of this. They may be important mentions because these units have special abilities that remove the retreat ability, but other units have traits that make retreat impossible. Most of the time when a Terran pushes out against Zerg, he knows that his push must do damage because it isn't coming back home (thinking zerglings here). When doing drops against a Zerg, often they are one-way because the way mutalisks control the skies.
I also disagree about the phoenix. It's ability to move and shoot is different but gives it unique ability to kite units normally unkitable.
I agree on some things like the removal of the thor being a good thing, and about seige tanks being too weak, and space control in general being too weak.
Agreed, exactly my thoughts.
Anyway, I get the feeling blizz went for something different in Sc2; it's still centered around picking good engagements and army composition but they removed some of the more dynamic area control units to allow for a faster gameplay. Yes we see a lot of rushes but that just means people will have to prepare more and that there are more ways of winning.
There is also the "pre-battle"-micro that some people have already mentioned that is so important in Sc2. One one hand, you complain about positioning and that it is less important, yet on the other you complain about the units that actually contribute to forcing positioning - sentries, banelings, tanks, roaches, infestors etc.
Like, there's no way you can meet a protoss army head-on as zerg; you either have to do some crazy flank (positionally) or avoid it completely unless you're way ahead. Why? Because of colossus and sentries as well as blink micro. You can't stack your marines into a ball (something you complain about) against infestor play because they will all just get fungaled which takes micro from both sides. In ZvZ you can't just a-move your roaches into the other zerg player b/c he will have a better concave and/or static defense which is actually very good. Same thing goes vs terran; try a-moving into a terran siege line with almost anything and you will die.
Arguably the siege tank could be seen as a bad unit according to your logic because it takes less micro to set them up compared to the zerg/other terran player having to break them. You have to be really decisive against siege tanks or you will lose. You have to really choose where you want the battle, much like against colossus. Do you see where this comparison fails? Someone just setting up siege tanks randomly and not microing his otherunits will undoubtedly lose vs any competent player, much like someone a-moving his colossus and his other units into some random location. I get the feeling you haven't watched many pro games and are mostly basing this off of your own experience.
Also, killing the colossus is not very hard, actually. It's easy; just get some corruptors or vikings. The difficulty is how many vikings or corruptors should you get? If you get too many you will just have a bunch of useless supply and the toss army will walk you over. This also adds something to the game even if it isn't micro. Micro is arguably "just" one dimension in the game.
And just mentioning the negative aspects of something is never good. I'd much rather see some contrast; this is what they did well and what you want more of. It makes it easier to interpret what you mean with good design. Now it just looks like you want BW 2.0 or, alternatively, that this is a balance whine.
there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
Great thread! Hopefully blizzard will see it and take steps to redesign units to be less deathball-like in hots and lotv
I want blizzard to fix these things because I just don't see myself watching this game in 10 years. I was watching brood war 10 years ago and I still watch proleague at least once a week, that game just did something right. I'd hate to lose interest in SC2 over 1-dimensionality of units. Particularly protoss units, I feel like the dynamic between zerg and terran is just right.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
Eternal legacy, the last portion of your points can automatically be crossed out if you consider that blizzard wants ladder games to be fast paced. They don't want bronze and silver leaguers (which seem to be the majority of players) to have to play 30min games because one player has good stactic defense.
Apart from that i wholeheartedly agree with all the micro points raised. Not only more microable units can better differentiate the skill level in players, but it makes SC2 more of a show to watch. I can imagine there being many specific micro units, and some players focusing on some, and doing amazing things with them. It would be a blast to watch.
But for instance, back in beta there already was a huge topic about how phoenix auto shoot was bad and blizz kept it anyway. I would doubt this would change anything at all. The only advice they listen to are imba comments posted on battle.net forums by bronze - plat, or very serious imbalanced units that cause troubles in pro games, they don't really like to be told how make their game. Closed minded people that's what they are.
Sometimes times after playing some BW and going back this stuff makes me feel like:
But still, positioning and precision do come into play. Whether the 10 year old strong nostalgia is doing it or something else, it makes it less fun in some cases.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
Forcing detection is a key issue that a lot of SC2 players don't appreciate the beauty of.
3hatch lurker-based PvZ, which is basically standard, relies on the fragility of protoss detection that allows Zerg to stay alive long enough for its economy to kick in. Whether the zerg can keep observers at bay is what determines the outcome of the game in these situations.
Zone control: 2 tanks behind a wall-in was "absolute defense" for an expansion in TvP. With repair, those two siege tanks could almost always hold a position until reinforcements arrived. Ground-based expansion sniping was essentially impossible in PvT (while Carrier play focused around it).
This point is a bit overstated though, imo, since Protoss never really had a unit that could exert zone control in any of its matchups (no the reaver doesn't count since it was only ever used in static defense in PvZ behind cannons or with a shuttle). In the PvT matchup, with proper positioning, tanks trumped everything on the ground. The metagame evolved around this paradigm, with Protoss expanding offensively so as to force base trades where Terran always wanted to force an engagement.
Also, the argument that roaches roaches are anti-micro is applicable to dragoons in BW. They're just a beefy all-around good unit to have that work best in reasonable numbers with a-move (with minor adjustments for position). Also, hydras in SC2 are much tankier (relative to the aoe they are matched up against) than their SC2 counterparts (bw storms 1shotted hydras). They're just slow and roaches are so much tankier.
while I disagree with the "complain" about Tanks, cuz they are simply the best unit in SC2 to hold ground and protect zones, I feel absolutly the same regarding forcefields and Collosus. Maybe it wouldn`t even be enough to give FF armor and HP, but to remove it and strengthen the zealot and/or the stalker to be able to defend early aggression.
Something I want to add is the absurdly high DPS. I think it`s bad design if a player turtles on 2 or 3 base, just to max out a 200 supply army, while his opponent expands and is on 4 or 5 base and if the turteling player moves out to kill the opponents army, he just pushes the mainbase and ends the game, because there is no way the reinforcements arrive in time. It should be more like this: win a battle - move a bit forward - win another battle - move a bit forward(maybe secure another expand) ... and so on.
Not being able to retreat is frustrating, but Sentries and Marauders aren't the only cases of this. They may be important mentions because these units have special abilities that remove the retreat ability, but other units have traits that make retreat impossible. Most of the time when a Terran pushes out against Zerg, he knows that his push must do damage because it isn't coming back home (thinking zerglings here). When doing drops against a Zerg, often they are one-way because the way mutalisks control the skies.
This is the same thing I always think of when people complain about abilities that "don't allow micro". There are countless situations in the game where you are using unit comp X against unit comp Y and you cannot micro your way out of it or retreat simply because the other guy has a more mobile army.
Also its not like there is no way to avoid these abilities. A part of being a good player is knowing how to deal with these abilities: keeping track of the protoss sentry count and trying to make him waste some, spreading your army against fungals, avoiding engagement with marauders unless its a favorable position. These abilities actually bring a lot of depth to the game, which people are quick to dismiss just because...Brood war didn't have them I guess?
On January 12 2012 20:37 zul wrote: while I disagree with the "complain" about Tanks, cuz they are simply the best unit in SC2 to hold ground and protect zones, I feel absolutly the same regarding forcefields and Collosus. Maybe it wouldn`t even be enough to give FF armor and HP, but to remove it and strengthen the zealot and/or the stalker to be able to defend early aggression.
Something I want to add is the absurdly high DPS. I think it`s bad design if a player turtles on 2 or 3 base, just to max out a 200 supply army, while his opponent expands and is on 4 or 5 base and if the turteling player moves out to kill the opponents army, he just pushes the mainbase and ends the game, because there is no way the reinforcements arrive in time. It should be more like this: win a battle - move a bit forward - win another battle - move a bit forward(maybe secure another expand) ... and so on.
Blizz wants games to be fast (15-20mins) so casual players have more urge to play. The only way our wishes would be satisfied is if it was only possible for top players to use some units and strategy so well only their games would last longer. Otherwise i wouldn't expect any patch from blizzard to make anything other than - quoting blizz employees - "cool units that fit in the game".
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
I agree with almost every single one of your points. This is the stuff that we've all been thinking since beta. Lets hope someone at Blizzard reads it and wakes the duck up.
On January 12 2012 20:37 zul wrote: while I disagree with the "complain" about Tanks, cuz they are simply the best unit in SC2 to hold ground and protect zones, I feel absolutly the same regarding forcefields and Collosus. Maybe it wouldn`t even be enough to give FF armor and HP, but to remove it and strengthen the zealot and/or the stalker to be able to defend early aggression.
Something I want to add is the absurdly high DPS. I think it`s bad design if a player turtles on 2 or 3 base, just to max out a 200 supply army, while his opponent expands and is on 4 or 5 base and if the turteling player moves out to kill the opponents army, he just pushes the mainbase and ends the game, because there is no way the reinforcements arrive in time. It should be more like this: win a battle - move a bit forward - win another battle - move a bit forward(maybe secure another expand) ... and so on.
Blizz wants games to be fast (15-20mins) so casual players have more urge to play. The only way our wishes would be satisfied is if it was only possible for top players to use some units and strategy so well only their games would last longer. Otherwise i wouldn't expect any patch from blizzard to make anything other than - quoting blizz employees - "cool units that fit in the game".
Blizzard has the hard task of making units cool and well-designed. To take the OP's example of the roach, they could have kept the regen aspect of the design in, making the roach still an all-round cool unit on the face of things, but giving it depth.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that.
in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank
the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that.
in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank
the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me
what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously...
so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways...
i aggree with almost anything in the op. (except with the planetary fortress, it is way too good at holding positions, considering it is also command center. something like turrets attached to the CC would be much more interesting as they would not have such and incredible amount of HP combined with high AoE damage. At the moment, the PF is just another juggernaut.)
Very interesting points and well written OP! I agree 100 % although the absence of micro is a far more severe problem than micro-reducing abilities in my opinion. I mean, micro-reducing abilities are not that big of a deal if there isn’t much micro potential to begin with. It will be interesting to see if the new HotS units can add more zone control, which is something that SC2 is in dire need of. How can maps help balance a game when the layout have such a small effect on battles/army movement?
I keep thinking more and more the biggest problem with so many of these issues is Blizzard wanting to have the game playable for bronze/silver level players. There is, as mentioned, an industry trend towards more automation so that the game actually becomes pure strategy, no execution involved, so even if you can barely play the game, you can still have some semblance of the experience the game is meant to provide. In Starcraft's case it is about alien races on harsh worlds going to battle - I think the fear is a new player is going to start, say, Brood War multiplayer and simply become overwhelmed by the high execution requirements and become frustrated at his inability to produce said armies.
That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here.
I used to play Warcraft 3 a lot and I was able to convince one of my brothers to also play the game. He actually likes strategy games a lot and often plays Risk and Rome: Total War and such. He did not play on as high a level as I did, playing mostly team games, where he likes getting ultimate unit compositions. I don't think I could have gotten him to play Brood War the same way though. Maybe some big money maps, if that, because Brood War is so much harder than Warcraft 3. My youngest brother tried Warcraft 3 melee gameplay like a couple of times, but he was terrible at it and just stuck to playing DotA. For him even WC3 was too mechanically demanding compared to just the one hero.
My second example is that I'm currently playing through the Warcraft 2 campaigns and if you think Brood War was mechanically demanding, try that game. No control groups, awkward hotkeys, no queuing, you can only select 9 units maximum. If you play it at the highest speed and actually bother with expanding, you'll be so busy creating units you will hardly have time to even do scouting or set up attacks. You pretty much need to sacrifice efficient macro, just build way too many barracks, and focus on purely army movement in such cases. I will say that playing this is a little bit tiring, but I actually hardly have any problems with it, even if it's more demanding than Starcraft 2. I think the reason is because I only play the campaigns and I'm not punished for lack of speed: it just makes the missions harder, but I can also always play on slower game speeds if I want to or use cheat codes.
Personally, I think that you have to know your audience, and some people are simply not good at multitasking and/or strategic thought. To dilute something too much for the casuals will eventually alienate actual RTS players, who are the people you want to attract. At the same time, not everyone has the ability to acquire mechanical skill and it's a good thing to have a playable game for both casuals and hardcore players. Maybe at TL the focus is purely on the hardcore aspect of it, but you will eventually lose an audience of potential RTS gamers that are just too overwhelmed by the game's difficulty.
I honestly think it's a big missed opportunity that Blizzard didn't create more of a casual multiplayer experience. As I said earlier, I don't think requiring mechanical skill is too overwhelming (maybe) if you are simply not punished for the lack of it. Ladder play does exist, and it's pretty nice, but it's still a game mode focused on competitive play, where you will be punished. It's not about fun. I think some people approach RTS games with a certain idea in their head about how they like to play the game and they are mostly concerned about recreating that idea, not about "playing to win".
So just an example of what an implementation of this might look like: instead of the silly practice ladder, just divide the ladder into two modes: casual, competitive. Casual is focused on having a slightly slower game speed, lots of available scouting information such as plentiful xel`naga towers, safety against rushes, lots of resources. I think if Blizzard wants to, they could also add autocast options for mules, inject larva, building workers. Add a notification to the warpgate icon for protoss that shows when all your warpgates are off cooldown etc. So keep the game mostly the same (I think having actually different units can be confusing), but change the maps and add some beneficial UI features. All these features would disappear from the competitive ladder, though.
I hope what this accomplishes is to separate competitive play and 'fun' play in a meaningful way that does not prevent crossover. The units are the same, the mechanics are also mostly the same, it's just that minerals are sparser, attacks are easier and there's overwhelmingly more mechanical stuff to do. I think that if the game was set up this way you could attract a casual audience that you could sort of 'nurture' and have transition off into watching or playing competitive e-sports - or just stick to casual modes, of course. In my first example, I think my brother that plays DotA would still not go for Starcraft 2 in this incarnation, but my other brother certainly would, so that'll be nice I think. Obviously you can accomplish all of this in the map editor, but it's not as accessible and frankly, the results won't have the quality of when an industry-leading game development company would do the same thing.
EternalLegacy, why do you title these threads "philosophy of design"? A list of opinions should not have pretensions of a design article.
The overall impression is of a sophomoric attempt to sound good. I don't understand the point of belaboring multiple gripes and stacking them up with pictures, hoping it looks like a coherent statement. I have no idea what you intend of not this.
Have you studied game design? If so, could you please... talk about game design? I feel bad for all the halfwits who are misled by the pomp. If you haven't... please call your threads something like "my thoughts on some things I don't like about sc2".
Not being able to retreat is frustrating, but Sentries and Marauders aren't the only cases of this. They may be important mentions because these units have special abilities that remove the retreat ability, but other units have traits that make retreat impossible. Most of the time when a Terran pushes out against Zerg, he knows that his push must do damage because it isn't coming back home (thinking zerglings here). When doing drops against a Zerg, often they are one-way because the way mutalisks control the skies.
This is the same thing I always think of when people complain about abilities that "don't allow micro". There are countless situations in the game where you are using unit comp X against unit comp Y and you cannot micro your way out of it or retreat simply because the other guy has a more mobile army.
Also its not like there is no way to avoid these abilities. A part of being a good player is knowing how to deal with these abilities: keeping track of the protoss sentry count and trying to make him waste some, spreading your army against fungals, avoiding engagement with marauders unless its a favorable position. These abilities actually bring a lot of depth to the game, which people are quick to dismiss just because...Brood war didn't have them I guess?
What are you even talking about? These things are just RTS fundamentals.. in BW of course you keep track of specific unit counts. Of course you spread units. And yes of course you avoid a non-favourable engagement instead of suiciding into it. The spells don't add any more of that, it's not like you can move in and then retreat without doing yourself heavy damage most of the time. The speed and length of the engagements in SC2 just amplifies this problem and limits the tactical scope. Forcing players to pick a decision which is 100% commited to the attack just makes turtling and deathballs worse.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that.
in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank
the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me
what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously...
so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways...
u can go for double factory with only one base in broodwar, that produce constantly tanks, try it... u can't do that in starcraft 2..
marine in broodwar vs mech is the shit, even with a better pathfinding... i just wondering if you have played brood war
marine in sc2 are like god units, i have just finish watching kakiwaki reps, they are good replay, indeed, but it's boring how in EVERY SINGLE REP that i have watched, he always built marines as main force, and this is against every race
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
Omg it's the metagame, twice, bolded and in capitals!!!
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
Omg it's the metagame, twice, bolded and in capitals!!!
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that.
in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank
the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me
what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously...
so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways...
u can go for double factory with only one base in broodwar, that produce constantly tanks, try it... u can't do that in starcraft 2..
marine in broodwar vs mech is the shit, even with a better pathfinding... i just wondering if you have played brood war
marine in sc2 are like god units, i have just finish watching kakiwaki reps, they are good replay, indeed, but it's boring how in EVERY SINGLE REP that i have watched, he always built marines as main force, and this is against every race
Tanks in BW =/= tanks in SC2 Dragoons =/= stalkers Zealots =/= Zealots so comparing how many of how many bases you can go doesnt make sense. (not even to mention that "a base" means something different in SC2 and BW)
especially as I haven't said anything about double fac tanks in BW, my argument remains and not answering to it and instead telling me stuff about things I never even mentioned just makes you look stupid. and you know that I wasn't talking about going mass marine vs mech. That is obvisouly dumb. In BW as well as in SC2 (that's why people add marauders when they see mech in TvT, or they go marine/tank against marine tank, or they go pure mech themselves to begin with) I was saying that mass marines doesn't coexist with mech as a viable TvX strategy in BW.
also should I add that it is boring how all BW-Terrans use tanks all the time in TvX? (apparently there are some which don't in TvZ, just like there are marineless players in TvZ and TvT in SC2) Well I'm not, because I don't think it is boring. Neither do I think that mass marines is boring. Or mass ling, roach, hydra, zealot, dragoon, mutalisk, goliath, vulture...
Warcraft 2 is a looooot easier then BW. There's almost no micro (aside from bloodlust spamming) so all you have to do is mass units and amove them at your enemy, and every few seconds check up on them to make sure that they aren't going afk.
The macro on the highest speed in Warcraft 2 is hard but that's the only feature of the game that makes it difficult. Still, I would play War2 over sc2 (in its current state) any day because when I play sc2 I feel like there is nothing to click on...
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that.
in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank
the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me
what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously...
so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways...
u can go for double factory with only one base in broodwar, that produce constantly tanks, try it... u can't do that in starcraft 2..
marine in broodwar vs mech is the shit, even with a better pathfinding... i just wondering if you have played brood war
marine in sc2 are like god units, i have just finish watching kakiwaki reps, they are good replay, indeed, but it's boring how in EVERY SINGLE REP that i have watched, he always built marines as main force, and this is against every race
Tanks in BW =/= tanks in SC2 Dragoons =/= stalkers Zealots =/= Zealots so comparing how many of how many bases you can go doesnt make sense. (not even to mention that "a base" means something different in SC2 and BW)
especially as I haven't said anything about double fac tanks in BW, my argument remains and not answering to it and instead telling me stuff about things I never even mentioned just makes you look stupid. and you know that I wasn't talking about going mass marine vs mech. That is obvisouly dumb. In BW as well as in SC2 (that's why people add marauders when they see mech in TvT, or they go marine/tank against marine tank, or they go pure mech themselves to begin with) I was saying that mass marines doesn't coexist with mech as a viable TvX strategy in BW.
also should I add that it is boring how all BW-Terrans use tanks all the time in TvX? (apparently there are some which don't in TvZ, just like there are marineless players in TvZ and TvT in SC2) Well I'm not, because I don't think it is boring. Neither do I think that mass marines is boring. Or mass ling, roach, hydra, zealot, dragoon, mutalisk, goliath, vulture...
I don't understand what the point of your post is, what your opinion is based on.. no single unit massed is boring simply just because.. what? BW hydra bust games where Z built solely hydra's were boring if we want a comparison to boring SC2 compositions just to show it's not universally SC2 problem, and sometimes certain rare goliath only builds were boring imo too. It's just lucky these were not the standard plays.
BW tanks how would you even compare... what a poor example to bring up. It's pretty obvious why you could consider tanks interesting in each matchup and not mass marines/bio, that's perfectly reasonable view to have. It's not that it's a single unit it's how it's used. Aggressive muta builds are very entertaining (and fun to play) and viable in every matchup in BW. But if you could do the same with hydra's it would definitely not be interesting.
On January 12 2012 22:20 Grumbels wrote: I keep thinking more and more the biggest problem with so many of these issues is Blizzard wanting to have the game playable for bronze/silver level players. There is, as mentioned, an industry trend towards more automation so that the game actually becomes pure strategy, no execution involved, so even if you can barely play the game, you can still have some semblance of the experience the game is meant to provide. In Starcraft's case it is about alien races on harsh worlds going to battle - I think the fear is a new player is going to start, say, Brood War multiplayer and simply become overwhelmed by the high execution requirements and become frustrated at his inability to produce said armies.
That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here.
[.....]
I think there is a lot of truth in your post, Blizzard is actively thinking about low level casuals when designing SC2, both in terms of playability (easiness) and balance. This is a major problem in my opinion, even though I can see the reasons for doing so.
I don’t think that it is a problem if some players are horrendous relative to professional players; they can still have a great time with a game, even though their games play out in a very different way compared to professional games. There is also one thing to keep in mind; the game is equally hard for all players. That means that even though BW is ridiculously hard, or maybe because BW is so hard, there will be tons of equally bad players.
On the other hand of the spectrum, the “streamlined design” of SC2 creates major constraints for the extremely talented gamers. With the approach that more stuff happens automatically, there are less ways for a better player to utilize his APM to dramatically affect the outcome of a battle. Blizzard needs to find a balance where there is a way to perform basic tasks without extensive use of micro/skill in order to appeal to casuals, and at the same time give professional players enough room to fully get rewarded for their skill. At this stage, I think the balance is skewed towards making SC2 accessible to everyone which hinders the complexity and ultimately the lifespan of the game.
In conclusion, I think that the professional scene could appreciate a boost in micro ability while it wouldn’t affect casual players that much as they still would face players of a similar skill level.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
yep, now imagine playing zerg in that scenario, as zerg is the most gas intensive race. It's two first gas units use gas on 2:1 and 3:1 ratios, and it gets worse from there. Most protoss units are around 2:1-3:1 and they're much stronger, requiring 1.5:1 or higher in zerg army to compete in late game.
On January 12 2012 20:36 Gummy wrote: Forcing detection is a key issue that a lot of SC2 players don't appreciate the beauty of.
3hatch lurker-based PvZ, which is basically standard, relies on the fragility of protoss detection that allows Zerg to stay alive long enough for its economy to kick in. Whether the zerg can keep observers at bay is what determines the outcome of the game in these situations.
Zone control: 2 tanks behind a wall-in was "absolute defense" for an expansion in TvP. With repair, those two siege tanks could almost always hold a position until reinforcements arrived. Ground-based expansion sniping was essentially impossible in PvT (while Carrier play focused around it).
This point is a bit overstated though, imo, since Protoss never really had a unit that could exert zone control in any of its matchups (no the reaver doesn't count since it was only ever used in static defense in PvZ behind cannons or with a shuttle). In the PvT matchup, with proper positioning, tanks trumped everything on the ground. The metagame evolved around this paradigm, with Protoss expanding offensively so as to force base trades where Terran always wanted to force an engagement.
Also, the argument that roaches roaches are anti-micro is applicable to dragoons in BW. They're just a beefy all-around good unit to have that work best in reasonable numbers with a-move (with minor adjustments for position). Also, hydras in SC2 are much tankier (relative to the aoe they are matched up against) than their SC2 counterparts (bw storms 1shotted hydras). They're just slow and roaches are so much tankier.
NO.
I;d rather be one shotted by storm and have colossus removed. colossus absolutely KILLS hydralisks. Hydras lost their ground speed from brood war, remained the same HP, and hained 2 points of damage, while around them the game inreased in damage all around, particularly AoE from the A move colossus. not to mention smartfire tanks.
Yeah should be kept in mind BW even in more recent years still had 50k logged into bnet, plus other servers. Tons of people obviously had fun, to this day, even if it was heavily outside 1v1. It's still the case in SC2 with matchmaking just making it better for people.
It's fun, rewarding with the difficult aspects and i think making it too easy in every aspect is going a bit far, do pc gamers really need it changed that much? Not saying the reaver should be in SC2, i don't think it should infact, but an example like that is a unit that is fun for all to use isn't it, even for a very low level player. I guess there is no equivlent now. But if there's more simple macro why not have multiple units with that kind of potential. I would have thought it's more fun than completely removing it.
Oh and HotS is really worrying in this regard. I thought Blizzard said they thought of fun things then balanced them. Well why do most of them look the total opposite. Every P unit for a start, what's going on with that? Freezing minerals will never be a fun thing to do or watch or any of the other things they do, they are just negative abilities that don't create anything interesting. And the Tempest is a big a-move ship to counter one unit apparently. Swarm host, that looks very worthless in any tactile feedback for the player, the shredder as well. Both to me again look not fun. Warhound again the same. The transforming hellions i guess are neutral and the viper the only possibly fun unit. Others might disagree about them i guess, but you have to admit they seem uninspiring to control or watch; i made a blog post with some alternative ideas that i felt would be fun to control and improve gameplay. Is it that hard to think of anything fun for P?
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
lololololololololololololololololol... I'm sorry, but please think at least once before posting such a thing. Just think about things like: gas mined per worker, minerals mined per worker, amount of workers per base, mules, amount of larva zerg has in SC2/BW, chronoboost blablablabla and then post this again...
you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad
in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch)
well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2?
if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect.
even if BW had a better path, u can't do mass rine like in starcraft 2, simple because mech doesn't suck in BW, and with more gas at te start, you can go for double starport or other thing like that.
in bw is perfect because you have always enough gas, to make your strategy, in sc2 open wih mech sucks because of this and the + 25 to the tank
the reason why they decide to put two gas, is still beyond me
what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously...
so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways...
u can go for double factory with only one base in broodwar, that produce constantly tanks, try it... u can't do that in starcraft 2..
marine in broodwar vs mech is the shit, even with a better pathfinding... i just wondering if you have played brood war
marine in sc2 are like god units, i have just finish watching kakiwaki reps, they are good replay, indeed, but it's boring how in EVERY SINGLE REP that i have watched, he always built marines as main force, and this is against every race
Tanks in BW =/= tanks in SC2 Dragoons =/= stalkers Zealots =/= Zealots so comparing how many of how many bases you can go doesnt make sense. (not even to mention that "a base" means something different in SC2 and BW)
especially as I haven't said anything about double fac tanks in BW, my argument remains and not answering to it and instead telling me stuff about things I never even mentioned just makes you look stupid. and you know that I wasn't talking about going mass marine vs mech. That is obvisouly dumb. In BW as well as in SC2 (that's why people add marauders when they see mech in TvT, or they go marine/tank against marine tank, or they go pure mech themselves to begin with) I was saying that mass marines doesn't coexist with mech as a viable TvX strategy in BW.
also should I add that it is boring how all BW-Terrans use tanks all the time in TvX? (apparently there are some which don't in TvZ, just like there are marineless players in TvZ and TvT in SC2) Well I'm not, because I don't think it is boring. Neither do I think that mass marines is boring. Or mass ling, roach, hydra, zealot, dragoon, mutalisk, goliath, vulture...
I don't understand what the point of your post is, what your opinion is based on.. no single unit massed is boring simply just because.. what? BW hydra bust games where Z built solely hydra's were boring if we want a comparison to boring SC2 compositions just to show it's not universally SC2 problem, and sometimes certain rare goliath only builds were boring imo too. It's just lucky these were not the standard plays.
BW tanks how would you even compare... what a poor example to bring up. It's pretty obvious why you could consider tanks interesting in each matchup and not mass marines/bio, that's perfectly reasonable view to have. It's not that it's a single unit it's how it's used. Aggressive muta builds are very entertaining (and fun to play) and viable in every matchup in BW. But if you could do the same with hydra's it would definitely not be interesting.
because the game is (the games are) designed in a way that you lose if you only mass 1unit. So the only ways to use those 1unit compositions in the first place is to outsmart your opponent who goes for a too far spread (combatutilitiwise) composition. It's not "obvious" why monotank is so superultracool-always-the-most-entertaining-thing-to-have composition. True (as I said I don't dislike it), there is a very nice positional aspect, and timingwise aspect in which your vulnurable to them. But I don't get why this should be so bad with other compositions.
Example: Mass Marine in TvT MMA-style (from the MMA vs MVP finals): -) pressure your opponent while you expand and get an eco lead -) add Marauders and drop your opponent to keep him busy while you get a bigger eco lead -) transition into bio/mech --> I really don't know why this should be boring. Tons of stuff (rushes, drops, expansions...) going on.
another example: mass zergling Stephano style: -) Expand a lot while you only build zerglings -) counterattack and sacrifice expansions while keeping your base count high -) tech to infestors and fast hive --> counterattacks, pressure from the opponent, drops because pure ling isnt that strong of a dropdefense etc going on. Again the monocomposition/gameplan leads to an exciting match!
And those are pretty much the most one unit focused compositions in SC2, and they don't lead to "boring" games. Also they are by no means monocompositions for all of the game. I haven't seen the stable monounit composition in neither SC1 or SC2 that the guy was talking about. Ofc there will always be monoplay as well, but even that doesn't mean that the resulting game has to be bad...
I really liked the comparison to CnC, they seem to think about "fun" first and only later on about the repercussions on competitive gameplay. Supposing we're done with the question "can SC2 be improved?" the main issue for me is the vicious circle which comes from:
1) SC2 is a developed e-sport, there are people who make life off SC2 any major game change will influence them greatly 2) If you want to be good at SC2 you need to accept the limitations/imbalances of the game design and improve your play within the boundaries 3) The people who might be able to influence Blizzard are usually progamers/casters so they: ---> Rely on SC2 and don't necessarily want to keep re-learning the game over and over or criticise Blizzard openly, let alone “strike” (point 1) ---> Want to get better and have to overcome bad game design with their play (point 2)
Even as I spectator you need to employ point 2 because it's not fun to watch a TvZ and keep b*tching and moaning about bunker rushes, hellions and banshees every time (yes, I do that and it pains me a lot).
The issue of what and how needs to be changes stays controversial even among progamers. Since I get to hear him a lot EGiNcontroL is an example of a progamer I have the biggest "how the hell can he think that?" moments when he talks about SC2. That's why I'm very pessimistic about the future of SC2, it feels like the opposite of a well oiled machine and the parts don't fit together at all (yet, it happens to be the most popular competitive RTS I know off).
PS: I felt like discussing the specifics of the article is unnecessary when we don’t have the tools to employ any design changes and that’s what I’d like to see discussed among the influential people from the SC2 community.
On January 12 2012 22:18 gn0m wrote: I agree 100 % although the absence of micro is a far more severe problem than micro-reducing abilities in my opinion. I mean, micro-reducing abilities are not that big of a deal if there isn’t much micro potential to begin with.
On January 13 2012 00:24 Zax19 wrote: I really liked the comparison to CnC, they seem to think about "fun" first and only later on about the repercussions on competitive gameplay. Supposing we're done with the question "can SC2 be improved?" the main issue for me is the vicious circle which comes from:
CnC always had a small competetive scene and balance wasn't too far off as far as I know from playing RA3 myself for some time.
Well i guess it's heavily opinion here.. but not meaning just a single unit, but the bio play doesn't seem very dynamic to me and the fact you can see it everywhere, i feel spread out or made more micro heavy in some way it could be improved. Like maybe even another unit to be more synergic with the marine.. just a thought; something that would make constant correct positioning and movement even more important. Or an ability where they could form lines with shields and block units to create on-the-fly walls and soaking of damage. Right now you have stimming which is not really a skill at all and stutter stepping which is only a kiting variation. In BW they felt vulnerable and now them being a solid all around unit seen in every matchup and with the blobbing is just personally unappealing currently.
I'm not too familar with this second example, saw a few games i think; but it feels more like this is only the composition because you have to do it to gain the eco advantage no? Like there's little choice in the matter lings is the only option to play to that style. Correct me if i'm wrong there. Zerg's options surely could be better. There seems to be a gap in strategies between total all-in or an eco style. Like no in between that's how it felt.
I think more peole object to the balling creating quick simple battles than single units; they could all be interesting if that changed. Units like the roach/marine seem deliberately designed just for this style so the criticisms overlap a bit. Of course you could think it's all interesting right now but i'm sure everyone agrees there's ways to improve that or it really will be stale in the long run.
On January 13 2012 00:34 infinity2k9 wrote: Well i guess it's heavily opinion here.. but not meaning just a single unit, but the bio play doesn't seem very dynamic to me and the fact you can see it everywhere, i feel spread out or made more micro heavy in some way it could be improved. Like maybe even another unit to be more synergic with the marine.. just a thought; something that would make constant correct positioning and movement even more important. Or an ability where they could form lines with shields and block units to create on-the-fly walls and soaking of damage. Right now you have stimming which is not really a skill at all and stutter stepping which is only a kiting variation. In BW they felt vulnerable and now them being a solid all around unit seen in every matchup and with the blobbing is just personally unappealing currently.
I'm not too familar with this second example, saw a few games i think; but it feels more like this is only the composition because you have to do it to gain the eco advantage no? Like there's little choice in the matter lings is the only option to play to that style. Correct me if i'm wrong there. Zerg's options surely could be better. There seems to be a gap in strategies between total all-in or an eco style. Like no in between that's how it felt.
I think more peole object to the balling creating quick simple battles than single units; they could all be interesting if that changed. Units like the roach/marine seem deliberately designed just for this style so the criticisms overlap a bit. Of course you could think it's all interesting right now but i'm sure everyone agrees there's ways to improve that or it really will be stale in the long run.
well, that sounds a lot different to what I was responding to, because I can pretty much agree with all of that. A little more positional play in bio would be more interesting. (like it is forced in TvZ due to banelings) a little more variety in zerg compositions would be interesting (mostly thinking about the range tech path being underpowered) A little less warpgate focused play from protoss, with more dynamic would be interesting. But that's not to say that the current styles are bad. I just think there should be more (equal strenght/different orientation) options in the game.
And yeah, stephano style (just like bio TvT or even bio TvP) relies a lot on taking bases and therefore the resulting compositon is low tier. But imo that again shows that low tier is only playable if you have it in a solid eco advantage gameplan, which again is a counterargument to "marines (or whatever unit you want to put in that spot) are too good".
On January 13 2012 00:24 Zax19 wrote: I really liked the comparison to CnC, they seem to think about "fun" first and only later on about the repercussions on competitive gameplay. Supposing we're done with the question "can SC2 be improved?" the main issue for me is the vicious circle which comes from:
CnC always had a small competetive scene and balance wasn't too far off as far as I know from playing RA3 myself for some time.
I can't comment on older CnC but CnC3 was a game I played for "fun", not for balance, and CnC4 was an utter disgrace of unit design, IMHO.
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Because MM requires much less micro, so casuals can play. In BW a random noname player couldn't beat some famous korean progamer (for example Flash, Jaedong etc.) but in SC2 if you learn some strong timing or allin, you can actually beat those guys. It is so much more casual game than BW.
On January 13 2012 00:24 Zax19 wrote: I really liked the comparison to CnC, they seem to think about "fun" first and only later on about the repercussions on competitive gameplay. Supposing we're done with the question "can SC2 be improved?" the main issue for me is the vicious circle which comes from:
CnC always had a small competetive scene and balance wasn't too far off as far as I know from playing RA3 myself for some time.
I can't comment on older CnC but CnC3 was a game I played for "fun", not for balance, and CnC4 was an utter disgrace of unit design, IMHO.
well, I played a lot of CnCs, mostly for fun. I know that CnC3 had a lot of problems early with GDI tankrushes being overpowered, but from what I have heard of a SC2-colleague who played it for a longer time, it became very solid after that phase with a lot of harass strategies and stuff like that. And again from my own experience in CnC: RA3, it is a very fast, very micro- and rushfocused game with a lot of strategies (at least if you play sowjets or allies) and a very balanced lategame, if you don't let things get out of hand before that (which is also true for BW and SC2). Maybe allies are a bit too strong if you can micro well, but at the skill level it has been played it was still acceptable imo. can't talk for CnC4. Never played it, but from what I have seen and heard, it is obviously a different category of RTS then the other CnCs or SC2.
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Because MM requires much less micro, so casuals can play. In BW a random noname player couldn't beat some famous korean progamer (for example Flash, Jaedong etc.) but in SC2 if you learn some strong timing or allin, you can actually beat those guys. It is so much more casual game than BW.
everyone could beat Flash one year after the game was out. Bring the same argument when SC2 is as old as BW, so let's say 10years from now?!
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Because MM requires much less micro, so casuals can play. In BW a random noname player couldn't beat some famous korean progamer (for example Flash, Jaedong etc.) but in SC2 if you learn some strong timing or allin, you can actually beat those guys. It is so much more casual game than BW.
That's because in BW, everything is set in stone. Your Korean progamers know the answer to everything, because everything has already been tried and done. Not to mention that for every match-up, there's actually an optimal build and strategy.
In SC2, on the other hand, people don't know everything yet. There are multiple playstyles, some of which haven't even been discovered yet. There are strong timing attacks for which there's no definite answer yet. And with time, people will be able to deflect them, provided the attack isn't executed better than the defence. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
Nice compilation of previous threads and good comments. I agree most of your statements, except about micro-reducing. I thought it gives a different option to players to contro lthe game.
On January 12 2012 22:20 Grumbels wrote: I keep thinking more and more the biggest problem with so many of these issues is Blizzard wanting to have the game playable for bronze/silver level players. There is, as mentioned, an industry trend towards more automation so that the game actually becomes pure strategy, no execution involved, so even if you can barely play the game, you can still have some semblance of the experience the game is meant to provide. In Starcraft's case it is about alien races on harsh worlds going to battle - I think the fear is a new player is going to start, say, Brood War multiplayer and simply become overwhelmed by the high execution requirements and become frustrated at his inability to produce said armies.
That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here.
[.....]
I think there is a lot of truth in your post, Blizzard is actively thinking about low level casuals when designing SC2, both in terms of playability (easiness) and balance. This is a major problem in my opinion, even though I can see the reasons for doing so.
I don’t think that it is a problem if some players are horrendous relative to professional players; they can still have a great time with a game, even though their games play out in a very different way compared to professional games. There is also one thing to keep in mind; the game is equally hard for all players. That means that even though BW is ridiculously hard, or maybe because BW is so hard, there will be tons of equally bad players.
On the other hand of the spectrum, the “streamlined design” of SC2 creates major constraints for the extremely talented gamers. With the approach that more stuff happens automatically, there are less ways for a better player to utilize his APM to dramatically affect the outcome of a battle. Blizzard needs to find a balance where there is a way to perform basic tasks without extensive use of micro/skill in order to appeal to casuals, and at the same time give professional players enough room to fully get rewarded for their skill. At this stage, I think the balance is skewed towards making SC2 accessible to everyone which hinders the complexity and ultimately the lifespan of the game.
In conclusion, I think that the professional scene could appreciate a boost in micro ability while it wouldn’t affect casual players that much as they still would face players of a similar skill level.
I also think that Starcraft 2 is sort of built around a higher latency than we might think. They obviously decided right at the start to not allow LAN and they must have thought they needed to not make the game too frustrating to play for people with bad connections/who are far away from the server. I think some of the lack of 'twitchiness' can be explained this way: it's actually a design goal by Blizzard. It's just a guess though.
Some minor evidence for this: right at the start of beta the standard battle.net in-built delay was an unplayable 200+ms and they only later changed it to the current 100+ ms. Another one: you can't properly transform vikings to avoid enemy missiles even if with minor tweaking they could have added that as micro skill. (not too hard to implement in the editor I think) They probably did not because it would be too unfair for people with bad latency.
On January 12 2012 22:20 Grumbels wrote: I keep thinking more and more the biggest problem with so many of these issues is Blizzard wanting to have the game playable for bronze/silver level players. There is, as mentioned, an industry trend towards more automation so that the game actually becomes pure strategy, no execution involved, so even if you can barely play the game, you can still have some semblance of the experience the game is meant to provide. In Starcraft's case it is about alien races on harsh worlds going to battle - I think the fear is a new player is going to start, say, Brood War multiplayer and simply become overwhelmed by the high execution requirements and become frustrated at his inability to produce said armies.
That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here.
[.....]
I think there is a lot of truth in your post, Blizzard is actively thinking about low level casuals when designing SC2, both in terms of playability (easiness) and balance. This is a major problem in my opinion, even though I can see the reasons for doing so.
I don’t think that it is a problem if some players are horrendous relative to professional players; they can still have a great time with a game, even though their games play out in a very different way compared to professional games. There is also one thing to keep in mind; the game is equally hard for all players. That means that even though BW is ridiculously hard, or maybe because BW is so hard, there will be tons of equally bad players.
On the other hand of the spectrum, the “streamlined design” of SC2 creates major constraints for the extremely talented gamers. With the approach that more stuff happens automatically, there are less ways for a better player to utilize his APM to dramatically affect the outcome of a battle. Blizzard needs to find a balance where there is a way to perform basic tasks without extensive use of micro/skill in order to appeal to casuals, and at the same time give professional players enough room to fully get rewarded for their skill. At this stage, I think the balance is skewed towards making SC2 accessible to everyone which hinders the complexity and ultimately the lifespan of the game.
In conclusion, I think that the professional scene could appreciate a boost in micro ability while it wouldn’t affect casual players that much as they still would face players of a similar skill level.
I also think that Starcraft 2 is sort of built around a higher latency than we might think. They obviously decided right at the start to not allow LAN and they must have thought they needed to not make the game too frustrating to play for people with bad connections/who are far away from the server. I think some of the lack of 'twitchiness' can be explained this way: it's actually a design goal by Blizzard. It's just a guess though.
Some minor evidence for this: right at the start of beta the standard battle.net in-built delay was an unplayable 200+ms and they only later changed it to the current 100+ ms. Another one: you can't properly transform vikings to avoid enemy missiles even if with minor tweaking they could have added that as micro skill. (not too hard to implement in the editor I think) They probably did not because it would be too unfair for people with bad latency.
viking argument doesnt hold. you can do it with drop micro (avoid missiles). They would have to remove this kind of micro out of the same reason (latency) then.
On January 12 2012 19:49 Garmer wrote: there is also a Minerals/gas ratio problem, that no one seems to have noticed, marine are overpowered because of this, u have much more minerals than gas so u build more the units that require only minerals, obviously I wonder how it would be SC2 with one only gas, like broodwar..
Actually, this is a fair point. SC2 seems to have a very high reliance on gas units, and the mineral sink units are not universally appropriate, except marines. I'll hit on resource interplay a bit in my next part on macro.
Oh, I'm not saying the marine is overpowered, because that's a balance argument and we don't do that here.
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Because MM requires much less micro, so casuals can play. In BW a random noname player couldn't beat some famous korean progamer (for example Flash, Jaedong etc.) but in SC2 if you learn some strong timing or allin, you can actually beat those guys. It is so much more casual game than BW.
That's because in BW, everything is set in stone. Your Korean progamers know the answer to everything, because everything has already been tried and done. Not to mention that for every match-up, there's actually an optimal build and strategy.
In SC2, on the other hand, people don't know everything yet. There are multiple playstyles, some of which haven't even been discovered yet. There are strong timing attacks for which there's no definite answer yet. And with time, people will be able to deflect them, provided the attack isn't executed better than the defence. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
Firstly you are just assuming things about SC2's future.. but it's irrelevent because you are just wrong. The game is more volatile, pro's directly say it. The skill gaps are all closer people like Gatored can somehow take series let alone games, from GSL Koreans. If you look at the foreign TLPD in particular there's almost no consistency. In BW the better player wins a BO3 nearly all of the time, and single games are not disregarded like in SC2 when it's more heavily often decided by one advantage snowballing to a win. Plus less defenders advantage, less potential for comebacks etc.
BW also still gets new ideas used. Even in the OSL finals we saw new ideas. Besides Jaedong or Flash would just smash you regardless of strategies or build order, they don't need to answer you strategically because they would outmicro you completely with normal early aggression. The gap is massive in mechanics from the S-class to the rest of the A-teamers let alone to to non-pro's who they would never lose to. People don't just fluke wins after one engagement, it's not volatile at all in comparison.
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Because MM requires much less micro, so casuals can play. In BW a random noname player couldn't beat some famous korean progamer (for example Flash, Jaedong etc.) but in SC2 if you learn some strong timing or allin, you can actually beat those guys. It is so much more casual game than BW.
That's because in BW, everything is set in stone. Your Korean progamers know the answer to everything, because everything has already been tried and done. Not to mention that for every match-up, there's actually an optimal build and strategy.
In SC2, on the other hand, people don't know everything yet. There are multiple playstyles, some of which haven't even been discovered yet. There are strong timing attacks for which there's no definite answer yet. And with time, people will be able to deflect them, provided the attack isn't executed better than the defence. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
Firstly you are just assuming things about SC2's future.. but it's irrelevent because you are just wrong. The game is more volatile, pro's directly say it. The skill gaps are all closer people like Gatored can somehow take series let alone games, from GSL Koreans. If you look at the foreign TLPD in particular there's almost no consistency. In BW the better player wins a BO3 nearly all of the time, and single games are not disregarded like in SC2 when it's more heavily often decided by one advantage snowballing to a win. Plus less defenders advantage, less potential for comebacks etc.
BW also still gets new ideas used. Even in the OSL finals we saw new ideas. Besides Jaedong or Flash would just smash you regardless of strategies or build order, they don't need to answer you strategically because they would outmicro you completely with normal early aggression. The gap is massive in mechanics from the S-class to the rest of the A-teamers let alone to to non-pro's who they would never lose to. People don't just fluke wins after one engagement, it's not volatile at all in comparison.
game isn't as volatile, maybe months ago, or else people wouldn't have such consistent results like MVP/nestea and foreigners in GSL wouldn't keep coming home with 0-10 scores.
Nerchios wouldn't be winning almost every online tournament he ever attended
Even Flash doesn't win everything, and those below him often drop games as well to lesser known players
Naniwa have something like 1-11 in GSL doesn't he? idra is 1-4 and sen is 0-4. You'd think if it is truly volatile they'd have win something by now, since they are the best foreigners have to present
On January 12 2012 22:20 Grumbels wrote: I keep thinking more and more the biggest problem with so many of these issues is Blizzard wanting to have the game playable for bronze/silver level players. There is, as mentioned, an industry trend towards more automation so that the game actually becomes pure strategy, no execution involved, so even if you can barely play the game, you can still have some semblance of the experience the game is meant to provide. In Starcraft's case it is about alien races on harsh worlds going to battle - I think the fear is a new player is going to start, say, Brood War multiplayer and simply become overwhelmed by the high execution requirements and become frustrated at his inability to produce said armies.
That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here.
I used to play Warcraft 3 a lot and I was able to convince one of my brothers to also play the game. He actually likes strategy games a lot and often plays Risk and Rome: Total War and such. He did not play on as high a level as I did, playing mostly team games, where he likes getting ultimate unit compositions. I don't think I could have gotten him to play Brood War the same way though. Maybe some big money maps, if that, because Brood War is so much harder than Warcraft 3. My youngest brother tried Warcraft 3 melee gameplay like a couple of times, but he was terrible at it and just stuck to playing DotA. For him even WC3 was too mechanically demanding compared to just the one hero.
My second example is that I'm currently playing through the Warcraft 2 campaigns and if you think Brood War was mechanically demanding, try that game. No control groups, awkward hotkeys, no queuing, you can only select 9 units maximum. If you play it at the highest speed and actually bother with expanding, you'll be so busy creating units you will hardly have time to even do scouting or set up attacks. You pretty much need to sacrifice efficient macro, just build way too many barracks, and focus on purely army movement in such cases. I will say that playing this is a little bit tiring, but I actually hardly have any problems with it, even if it's more demanding than Starcraft 2. I think the reason is because I only play the campaigns and I'm not punished for lack of speed: it just makes the missions harder, but I can also always play on slower game speeds if I want to or use cheat codes.
Personally, I think that you have to know your audience, and some people are simply not good at multitasking and/or strategic thought. To dilute something too much for the casuals will eventually alienate actual RTS players, who are the people you want to attract. At the same time, not everyone has the ability to acquire mechanical skill and it's a good thing to have a playable game for both casuals and hardcore players. Maybe at TL the focus is purely on the hardcore aspect of it, but you will eventually lose an audience of potential RTS gamers that are just too overwhelmed by the game's difficulty.
I honestly think it's a big missed opportunity that Blizzard didn't create more of a casual multiplayer experience. As I said earlier, I don't think requiring mechanical skill is too overwhelming (maybe) if you are simply not punished for the lack of it. Ladder play does exist, and it's pretty nice, but it's still a game mode focused on competitive play, where you will be punished. It's not about fun. I think some people approach RTS games with a certain idea in their head about how they like to play the game and they are mostly concerned about recreating that idea, not about "playing to win".
So just an example of what an implementation of this might look like: instead of the silly practice ladder, just divide the ladder into two modes: casual, competitive. Casual is focused on having a slightly slower game speed, lots of available scouting information such as plentiful xel`naga towers, safety against rushes, lots of resources. I think if Blizzard wants to, they could also add autocast options for mules, inject larva, building workers. Add a notification to the warpgate icon for protoss that shows when all your warpgates are off cooldown etc. So keep the game mostly the same (I think having actually different units can be confusing), but change the maps and add some beneficial UI features. All these features would disappear from the competitive ladder, though.
I hope what this accomplishes is to separate competitive play and 'fun' play in a meaningful way that does not prevent crossover. The units are the same, the mechanics are also mostly the same, it's just that minerals are sparser, attacks are easier and there's overwhelmingly more mechanical stuff to do. I think that if the game was set up this way you could attract a casual audience that you could sort of 'nurture' and have transition off into watching or playing competitive e-sports - or just stick to casual modes, of course. In my first example, I think my brother that plays DotA would still not go for Starcraft 2 in this incarnation, but my other brother certainly would, so that'll be nice I think. Obviously you can accomplish all of this in the map editor, but it's not as accessible and frankly, the results won't have the quality of when an industry-leading game development company would do the same thing.
A lot of this fear of alienating casuals is absolutely silly. If you played Broodwar ever, you'd know that 90% of the players played BGH and Fastest, a lot with no rush 15 or similar. Hell, I did that as a kid and had a ton of fun with my 20 APM. If you make the game flexible, people will make it work for them. Blizzard seems to have this mindset that everyone must play the same game, and they have to tell you how you're going to play it.
I have a huge problem with the custom game system right now because it basically ensures that the casual scene BW had will never occur. Why they felt a need to ruin a system that worked for 2 world-class games is beyond me.
On January 13 2012 00:34 infinity2k9 wrote: Well i guess it's heavily opinion here.. but not meaning just a single unit, but the bio play doesn't seem very dynamic to me and the fact you can see it everywhere, i feel spread out or made more micro heavy in some way it could be improved. Like maybe even another unit to be more synergic with the marine.. just a thought; something that would make constant correct positioning and movement even more important. Or an ability where they could form lines with shields and block units to create on-the-fly walls and soaking of damage. Right now you have stimming which is not really a skill at all and stutter stepping which is only a kiting variation. In BW they felt vulnerable and now them being a solid all around unit seen in every matchup and with the blobbing is just personally unappealing currently.
I'm not too familar with this second example, saw a few games i think; but it feels more like this is only the composition because you have to do it to gain the eco advantage no? Like there's little choice in the matter lings is the only option to play to that style. Correct me if i'm wrong there. Zerg's options surely could be better. There seems to be a gap in strategies between total all-in or an eco style. Like no in between that's how it felt.
I think more peole object to the balling creating quick simple battles than single units; they could all be interesting if that changed. Units like the roach/marine seem deliberately designed just for this style so the criticisms overlap a bit. Of course you could think it's all interesting right now but i'm sure everyone agrees there's ways to improve that or it really will be stale in the long run.
zerg definetely lacks "gray area"(like im not going for allin neither for mass mass drone), no lurkers/dark swarm , or a general sense of threat from these units and/or muta timing makes them in most cases submissive to T/P strategies, the only MUST REACT situations to protoss/terran are zerg all ins or heavy droning. Assuming both players go for standard macro play.
. There is no muta timing in a sense of bw one. There are quite weak detection triggers for zerg also (creep sometimes /depends, borrow banelings), and often they can be prevented without detection. Borrowed banelings work like stop lurkers but dont work like lurkers so they cannot zone. I feel like there is big lack of defensive mechanisms (high ground/swarm) that you can work around with as zerg to buy time.
Volatile doesn't mean it's going to jump to everyone 50% winrate, just that games can far more easily go either way. Ret and IdrA both say it in recent interviews. There's still a mechanics gap it's just closer and means less.
Look at Flash's games.. he's 75% in the last year overall and except for about 2 games it's all top players, and when he was outplayed in the game. What happens in the actual games was not volatile at all. People don't just get lucky and win a game here or there, it's not even prepared strategies relying on surprise that beat him. His results during his domination period are just totally consistent with the skill shown pretty much. If you are familar enough with both games it'd be dishonest to claim it was even close in this regard, you can just watch any random GSL day and see games roll into wins from advantages easily.
On January 13 2012 02:16 infinity2k9 wrote: Volatile doesn't mean it's going to jump to everyone 50% winrate, just that games can far more easily go either way. Ret and IdrA both say it in recent interviews. There's still a mechanics gap it's just closer and means less.
Look at Flash's games.. he's 75% in the last year overall and except for about 2 games it's all top players, and when he was outplayed in the game. What happens in the actual games was not volatile at all. People don't just get lucky and win a game here or there, it's not even prepared strategies relying on surprise that beat him. His results during his domination period are just totally consistent with the skill shown pretty much. If you are familar enough with both games it'd be dishonest to claim it was even close in this regard, you can just watch any random GSL day and see games roll into wins from advantages easily.
just because idra and ret made some staments (which personally I have never heard before) makes them true; It sounds a lot like excuses to explain their failure.
There is a reason why Nestea have something like 90% winrate against other zerg and MVP has 75% against other Terran.
Nestea must be really lucky in ZvZ
Statistically speaking, if games can easily go "either way", you wouldn't have such obvious domination in winrate for players like Nestea, MVP, Nerchio, etc. MVP is boosting 11 champion trophy and 3 silver on some of the most competitive tourneys, and you can always count on him getting at least into round of 4 of any tournament he participate in.
Quite far-fetch to have this type of consistency if the game is as volatile as you make it out to be.
You should take your own advice, and perhaps offer some evidence with your claim outside of personal anecdote.
On January 11 2012 03:45 Markwerf wrote: Pff alot of these are just disguised balance whines. First of all you don't seem to know that much about gamedesign I'm realising. Complexity is not the holy grail in game design which your article does make it seem to be. Depth while remaining clarity is important. Chess is a great game because it's complex but still relatively easy to understand and thus strategize for, you don't have to know how to win directly for example by simply focussing on winning pieces allowing for people to plan strategies while not being experts. Go on the other hand is by many players especially in more Western societies deemed as too complex because it's very hard to set intermediar goals for the game because the game is more difficult to set subgoals for.
Microless units are needed to create important units, if each unit had many abilities etc it would become too chaotic or complex. The microless units you mention are not poorly designed at all imo in fact many of them have interesting abilities i think. Roach for example may look like a boring vanilla unit but wasn't the hydra in BW as well? Roaches being no AA means there is much more room for air units to play a crucial role in XvZ matchups a great design choice imo. The only poor unit design mentioned in this article here is the colossus, not per se because it's boring in itself but because of the counterunits (viking and corruptor) that there are which invalidate other cool units (battlecruiser and carrier).
In the same vein I don't see units that restrict micro as poor either. In the case of the sentry there is plenty that can be done about it for example, flanking, dropping, burrow, fungal, emp, etc.etc. Losing to it is aggrevating perhaps but that doesn't make the design poor, it's just a hidden balance whine.. Stasis and lockdown where liked abilities as well how are stuff like fungal etc different? If truly nothing could be done about these abilities then it might be problematic but there really is plenty you can do, for example marauder kiting can be solved by forcefields so these 'unfun' mechanics can perfectly solve eachother.
The point about a slight lack of zone control units I agree with but saying siege tanks don't fulfill that role now is silly. The entire TvZ matchup and TvT matchup revolve for a large part about zone and map control because of the siege tank. Saying this doesn't work properly is just silly, breaking siege lines is still very hard. The problem is just that you seem to be comparing the game to BW too much, yes PvT is not the same and the PvT there is now might not as good the BW variant but that doesn't mean the tank is broken.. they just chose an other path for sc2.
All this pretending to be some game design guru while it's just an elaborate balance whine basically is annoying. The conclusion is also just complete bogus.
I want to give the OP my support. I think it is a very well written posts with valid arguments. The post is clearly not a balance discussion but an iteration about how unit design influence the gameplay and it is more a discussion about what gameplay is and what gameplay do we want and consider a good one.
To be honest, you could've easily avoided most of the balance whine... well who am I kidding, some of it by addind a bolded paragraph that states that "this thread is not about balance since many other factors come into consideration, but about the way the game is played, no matter the race". Or something like that.
Why don't you watch some games instead of bringing up random winrates, any pro stream, any GSL day and you can blatantly see it, fair enough if you want to just deny it pointlessly. Games end up being guessing and mindgames a lot; nothing wrong with mindgames but it can be too much. Nestea's record is of 30 games over a period of over a year; now obviously he's good at the matchup and kept ahead enough to do well with just far superior preparation, but now he loses a series against HayprO in a non GSL format.
TvT is probably least volatile matchup so maintaining a winrate of that is probably feasible. And again what does bringing up single matchups prove anyway; it's not going to change the lack of defenders advantage, fast pace of engagements and minor advantages being hard to overcome.
On January 11 2012 04:50 Scufo wrote: Tanks make me cry in SC2. Zealots that can take 5 tank shots to the face, Immortals and Marauders. Speedlings on creep...my god. Tanks are the heart and soul of Terran and seeing them take a back seat to Marines and Marauders is depressing.
Ya this is a critical point. For some reason Blizzard decided to balance the game around MM instead of the old tank which is so much more interesting and race-defining.
Because MM requires much less micro, so casuals can play. In BW a random noname player couldn't beat some famous korean progamer (for example Flash, Jaedong etc.) but in SC2 if you learn some strong timing or allin, you can actually beat those guys. It is so much more casual game than BW.
everyone could beat Flash one year after the game was out. Bring the same argument when SC2 is as old as BW, so let's say 10years from now?!
This is a valid point which is commonly overlooked. After 10 years of nearly continual competitive play, BW is a far more fleshed out game than SC2. What did BW year one of the pro scene look like? Was there any point where the game revolved around 1 base play and expanding was rare? That would be a peice worth reading. Year one of BW as compaired to year one of SC2.
On January 13 2012 02:53 infinity2k9 wrote: Why don't you watch some games instead of bringing up random winrates, any pro stream, any GSL day and you can blatantly see it, fair enough if you want to just deny it pointlessly. Games end up being guessing and mindgames a lot; nothing wrong with mindgames but it can be too much. Nestea's record is of 30 games over a period of over a year; now obviously he's good at the matchup and kept ahead enough to do well with just far superior preparation, but now he loses a series against HayprO in a non GSL format.
TvT is probably least volatile matchup so maintaining a winrate of that is probably feasible. And again what does bringing up single matchups prove anyway; it's not going to change the lack of defenders advantage, fast pace of engagements and minor advantages being hard to overcome.
one is a measurable quantity and one is not? There is a reason people use numbers in debate and not "I see it with my eyes, so it must be true!". If you're going to argue in your favor, better bring up evidence instead of personal anecdotes...
Losing a set to haypro did not magically discredit Nestea's consistency, that's an outrageous claim, and I have no idea where you're going with your first paragraph.
For starter, you can try to explain how in this volatile settings can Nestea retain a impressive 90% winrates in ZvZ and 80% winrates in ZvP. If you say "just look at any gsl game" I will ignore every one of your posts
to be honest I am not sure why I'm still arguing with you when you make outrageous claims like "minor advantage hard to over come" or "lack of defenders advantage".
On January 11 2012 03:09 EternaLLegacy wrote: Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. .
i don't think you are honest here. do you really think it's an interesting mechanic on paper? so than tell me, what makes it interesting on paper and why does it not translate to the game?
don't get me wrong, it's a very well written article with many good points, but the forcefield topic is near to my heart and i think your take on it is insufficient. i LOOOVE forcefields. its one of the more unique and powerful spells in the game which i think the game should have more of. i think the sentry is a prime example of GOOD unit design, it is the only unit in the game which has not the main purpose to deal or tank damage, it feels so out of place and his main spell feels so op, and thats what every unit should feel like, op.
sentries are THE zone controlling unit in the protoss arsenal you claim this game lacks of. forcefields make it hard to attack the protoss base, and because of forcefields, every engagement with the protoss army is crucial and deadly. you have to be patient and choose the right time and right place.
i think your analysis misses the biggest drawback of sentries and the very reason sentries work: THEY'RE FREAKING EXPENSIVE! protoss is so gas dependent, especially in the lategame, that making sentries and sacrificing real damage dealing units is a non trivial choice which relies on skill. to make sentries work you have to have the exact right amount of sentries and sentry energy. and this adds to the game, because you have to know when and how many sentries to build, and you also have to protect them. and your opponent knows that. if sentries are involved, the enemy should force forcefields or try to kill them, that's what pros do. that's what sentries are all about: getting and protecting them or trying to snipe them.
let me make a bw analogy: imagine your facing a protoss army with so many dark archons and energy, that the protoss mind controls your whole army. there is nothing you chould do, no micro will help you. (btw, maelstrom, another dark archon spell, was as "mirco reducing" as fungal, but noone complained back then, but now people say fungal is so "not starcraft"). you knwo why my analogy is ridiculous? because you should never let your opponent get that many dark archons in the first place.
that's the same with sentries and every powerful spell caster in general. it's the task of the player to snipe the sentries or make them waste there energy before the crucial engagement. if you attack a protoss army with 10+ sentries with your 200/200 roach army in a narrow battle field, don't act like there is no way to avoid this scenario. thats what makes a good player, to prevent your enemy from getting the army he wants and the battle field he wants.
ok, your point is that forcefields reduce micro and that micro reducing spells should not exist in an RTS. i will dismiss this by just saying i don't agree with your premise that every RTS should have the maximum amount of microbility possible. i think this is up to debate. i think the sacrifice of micro for the strategical depth the sentry adds is more than worth it. and saying forcefields are less fun to watch is just an opinion. i think they're still hard enough to use and not tapped to their fullest potetial (especially in PvT). anyway. i love them <3
No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out.
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all.
On January 13 2012 03:06 iky43210 wrote: to be honest I am not sure why I'm still arguing with you when you make outrageous claims like "minor advantage hard to over come" or "lack of defenders advantage".
Haha right, everyone is mistaken the game is not volatile at all. And there's just as much defenders advantage and comeback potential as before. You must have a pretty limited understanding of either one of the games to have this opinion, or you think volatile implies that every game is a coinflip. People will still outplay people and win the game design has just allowed for potential situations where it's mindgames and split second events which can tilt a game too far one way. I dunno what games you've been watching where this doesn't happen.
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out.
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all.
take your own advice
your entire argument boils down to that the skill cap have been reached, which isn't possible by nature of RTS games. Sc2 alone has seen drastic changes in just previous 6 months]
and I love how you keep quoting pros out of context, just keep tightening that rose goggles of yours. Who knows what catastrophic event will happen if you see things out of bias.
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out.
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all.
I will say all the dumb crap I want and there is very little you can do to stop me(MODs on the other hand can stop me any time, but please don't). The same goes for you and judging by the number of posts you have, you have been doing it for a while now.
You offer no proof that SC2 will not evolve over 10 years or even 2 years. Your argument basiclly boils down to "BW is hard and SC2 is for scrubs." No one is saying that SC2 is as mechanically difficult as BW, because it simply is not. We all accept that SC2 is a more accessable game across the board, but that does not mean it cannot evolve and become a deeper game. And I am not asking people to give it 10 years. But I do think the compairing the depth of the game play to a game with 10 years of professional play behind it is unfair at the least. But, hey, if you think it is to easy, good for you. I hear that you can still play BW and enjoy yourself.
And you fail to answer my basic question: What did year one of professional BW look like compaired to modern BW? This so something a lot of people who got into SC2 do not know about. Can someone drop the knowlage bomb on us?
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out.
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all.
On January 13 2012 03:06 iky43210 wrote: to be honest I am not sure why I'm still arguing with you when you make outrageous claims like "minor advantage hard to over come" or "lack of defenders advantage".
Haha right, everyone is mistaken the game is not volatile at all. And there's just as much defenders advantage and comeback potential as before. You must have a pretty limited understanding of either one of the games to have this opinion, or you think volatile implies that every game is a coinflip. People will still outplay people and win the game design has just allowed for potential situations where it's mindgames and split second events which can tilt a game too far one way. I dunno what games you've been watching where this doesn't happen.
I dont know if you have noticed but Sc2 HAS changed quite a bit in the last year. The knowledge gained from brood war is beneficial but it doesnt directly translate into tactical brilliance. Time will always be a factor.
It's not about skill cap how could there even be a literal cap, everything can be micro'd slightly better or refined slightly. Nobodies reached the cap doesn't mean there's going to years of fruitful strategy evolution when the game clearly isn't going to have that. Obviously it's going to be forcibly changed whatever happens and hopefully some additions eventually which allow for that, but the game as it is does not.
Unless you want to suggest some theory on a new strategy MVP or someone could possibly do if they got better than now. Maybe mech in TvP right, you seem like you have a level of understanding where you think that would work.
Thanks for telling me that the game changed a lot in a year right after release and where it's been repeatedly patched. Very imformative. What next, a theory that the game might change a lot in the next few years too hrm... maybe
On January 13 2012 03:33 infinity2k9 wrote: It's not about skill cap how could there even be a literal cap, everything can be micro'd slightly better or refined slightly. Nobodies reached the cap doesn't mean there's going to years of fruitful strategy evolution when the game clearly isn't going to have that. Obviously it's going to be forcibly changed whatever happens and hopefully some additions eventually which allow for that, but the game as it is does not.
Unless you want to suggest some theory on a new strategy MVP or someone could possibly do if they got better than now. Maybe mech in TvP right, you seem like you have a level of understanding where you think that would work.
did you know reaper medivacs is starting to become more popular in Korea? The fact that whole heavy ghost usage was a very recent event and so is double forge chrono and just warp prism play in general.
Heavy hellion usage is also a relatively recent event as well
Nydus, queens, raven, pheonix, plenty of things haven't been fully utilized, not that pure unit composition is the only way for there to have improvements.
I won't waste anymore time with you, but you're quite naive if you think the game won't look quite different 6 months from now
I agree with most of your points, certain things in sc2 are just not designed well. But something i have noticed is that people always say that sc2 doesn't need any micro but that is mostly only true with certain deathball armies, how often do you see players microing roaches PROPERLY, microing mutas properly, hydras, infestors, terran bio units etc. And im not talking about positioning, im talking about proper kiting, pulling back weakened units(or those that you see are targeted down) Even at pro level players often don't do this, but this is one thing players can improve on and doesn't need to be changed in the game or something.
Maybe the maps just need to be bigger, more open so in deathball situations you can still micro, deathball armies are way too big for most maps.
On January 13 2012 03:33 infinity2k9 wrote: It's not about skill cap how could there even be a literal cap, everything can be micro'd slightly better or refined slightly. Nobodies reached the cap doesn't mean there's going to years of fruitful strategy evolution when the game clearly isn't going to have that. Obviously it's going to be forcibly changed whatever happens and hopefully some additions eventually which allow for that, but the game as it is does not.
Here is my main problem with your argument. You provide zero evidence to back up this claim. Your argument amounts you someone pointing at a stream of a profesional SC2 player and shouting "Look at it! Its garbage! Its trash. How can you think people will ever get any better at that crap!?!?!" There is little we can do to counter your argument because you act as if it is the god-given-truth that SC2's skill cap has been reached and there is nothing more to learn. I think there are a large number of professional players, many who played BW, who will disagree with you. You could argue that they are saying that out of self intrests as a professional player, but the same could be said for you as a fan of BW.
But you clearly hate SC2 and there is little we can do to change it. The real question is why do you continue to post in these threads? Do you believe that you can somehow make us agree with you by insulting something we enjoy? How effective did you think that would be? It is not like we spend time in the BW forums saying it is a ugly, dated game that no one should play because it looks like trash.(clearly I do not think this)
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked
yes it is.
, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid.
ok mister, "I don't like SC2 at all, but I know EVERYTHING about it", tell me why:
People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt.
yeah and I had good grades at school, and still I do have to study hard if I want to learn more in mathematics.
People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically
define easier... less apm needed to control a single unit? agree! Less apm spendable? disagree
, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM.
you know when you use your whole hand to slap the keyboard, you can get WAY higher than that!
No strategy is out of reach in mechanics
you clearly haven't seen bots like the automaton 2000. Haven't seen a player do that yet
, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it.
yeah right... everyone always knew about the Bisu build, it just happened to be Bisu that was able to play it, and all the other protoss players all around the world suddenly increased in skill after he used it, so that they could play it too. Right after Bisu had done it. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out.
I agree. There is only a handful of players who have the mechanics and the knowledge to play Mech in SC2 TvT.
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical.
I'm pretty sure that we will have significant changes even in a short periode like 3months from now. Just look at what happened in the last 3months. And in the 3months before that. And before that. It's not like people only just got more APM and better mechanics, they learned about what is possible and how their interactions lead to possibilities.
People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change?
yes
How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more.
yeah micro mechanics in a big battle are less important. But you could do an extra drop instead while microing in the big battle! You could use the spare APM to split even better! To kite even better! To macro better!
People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all.
On January 12 2012 22:29 EatThePath wrote: EternalLegacy, why do you title these threads "philosophy of design"? A list of opinions should not have pretensions of a design article.
The overall impression is of a sophomoric attempt to sound good. I don't understand the point of belaboring multiple gripes and stacking them up with pictures, hoping it looks like a coherent statement. I have no idea what you intend of not this.
Have you studied game design? If so, could you please... talk about game design? I feel bad for all the halfwits who are misled by the pomp. If you haven't... please call your threads something like "my thoughts on some things I don't like about sc2".
, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it.
yeah right... everyone always knew about the Bisu build, it just happened to be Bisu that was able to play it, and all the other protoss players all around the world suddenly increased in skill after he used it, so that they could play it too. Right after Bisu had done it. WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical.
I'm pretty sure that we will have significant changes even in a short periode like 3months from now. Just look at what happened in the last 3months. And in the 3months before that. And before that. It's not like people only just got more APM and better mechanics, they learned about what is possible and how their interactions lead to possibilities.
How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more.
yeah micro mechanics in a big battle are less important. But you could do an extra drop instead while microing in the big battle! You could use the spare APM to split even better! To kite even better! To macro better!
People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all.
Yeah, you obviously didn't think at all.
Thanks for this. I was getting ready to do the same thing by the time I reached the bottom of the page...
Like many have said, I think what Day[9] says in his Baseballs vs Frisbees video is, in my opinion, a wonderful way to put the frustration I think a lot of people who played BW have with SC2. The OP is saying many of the same things, but in a different way, which I appreciate. There is some perspective to be had between Day[9]'s video and this post that I think people should just consider for a while, preferably while watching one of those games where everyone went "OMG! This is the future!!!" (like Leenok's double spire game on Tal'darim). Ask yourself how much more effective those units are than what you could do with them by a significant enough margin that he's getting paid for it and you aren't. I'm not talking about the game as a whole, just about unit control/potential.
(Example: Leenock has great mutalisk use in the game I mentioned previously. He is brilliant about where they attack etc. Nothing about his control is especially powerful. It's the same hit-and-run most people do, maybe 1.5x better. This is not nearly as significant as the 8x-9x Day[9] is talking about in the design video. I realized that these numbers are arbitrary, but they're on a relative scale and meant to confer an idea, not be accurate, factual values.)
If you even consider feeling the need to comment on the fact that I'm comparing BW and SC2, please read this post: + Show Spoiler +
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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.
when bw community started to grow there was no past rts community with uber skills so everbody had to start at 0 its not the same with sc2 there are alot of people that played rts for serveral years and have the skills/speed etc
I think that Blizzard tried to sell more copies by making the game more noob-friendly while not pissing their entire BW-fanbase off. The result was that everyone was happy first, and while terran had to be fixed to not break the game (afaik, havent been around so mutch back then) people really had gread expectations. Until they began to actually figure the game out. It is a compromise that makes no one that happy and while the laddersystem geneates HUGE ladder anexity it is not the only cause because the game is not noob friendly at all. "Did you not build workers constantly? Oh we're so sorry but you have to spend three hours a day to actually be good at this game." And the pros are pissed off. More than anyone else. While the BW-legends don't even bother with SC2 the players who do complain. A lot. The end of the line is that blizzard sold a maximum amount of copies that does make neither of its target groups as happy as it could have. And if it had been noob-friendly it might have actually made the people play that bought it. All of them.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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.
On January 11 2012 04:36 bgx wrote: Sadly most of your post is mainly true, it does not give definitive answers but Blizzard is not even looking for those, they are happy with current status quo, and most people are too.
Someone posted on reddit patch changes to carrier the supposedly "useless" unit that cant be fixed and done anything with. Yes there was no patches since beta, they gave us a unit they thought from the start is useless (not even trying to experiment on that). Was that for getting more customers ? I mean protoss without carrier would a blasphemy so lets introduce it and pretend its part of competetive game. Its 12 years to late to introduce scout, hell even that unit was patched and was a part of vanilla gameplay (no corsair). I feel sorry for protoss.
edit: meant carrier ofc
In a perfect world, Blizzard would like to slowly replace all BW units with new units for SC2 I think. Not that I think that is always the best idea, but it is what they want to do... they are in the business of making new games and love new stuff, etc. I like new cool stuff too, but some old units were just a little better. Then again, some new units are better/cooler... like the stalker vs the dragoon.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not qualified to speak on this subject - I never played BW multiplayer and I jumped on to Starcraft II because it had a bandwagon, but this post did make me think some interesting things.
The OP talked a lot about the need for players with better control to beat players with better macro - 'more microable units', unit selection limits, and to some extent area control capabilities all enable these - and I suppose that idea has some merit. One important thing that I think the OP is missing another important point and that is that the Starcraft community has hugely expanded because of the fact that controlling your forces is not outrageously hard in this game.
How can the game become more skillful without becoming so hard that the popular base of the game's players drops off? Is that even an important question? It is important to me, but maybe I'm alone. I think the OP's ideas about making static defenses stronger or more up-gradable and reinforcing the few area control weapons in SC2 are the best ones presented here when viewed in that light.
Overall, I think the OP has some good points. I disagree on some detail, and I also think some of it is thinly disguised balance complaints. But still, a good topic and interesting.
One thing I notice is no love for Protoss positional play. I wonder what it would take, other than FF, for Protoss to have few units that could control space? The Mothership was perhaps another one with vortex on a big army or recall, but that is going away. If recall stays on nexus, then the nexus will be closer to the planet' fortress perhaps.
Also, ... forgot something here. xxxxxx
Tanks... yeah watch the Day9. Tanks are probably fine.
I like more micro, but not sure about the entire "units that kill micro" argument. I feel some hate towards FF. Fungal is certainly more dangerous when infestors are massed than mass FF. There are many ways around FF, but not fungal. Hell, fungal stops all air... FF can't touch air. Not as big of a problem after the NP nerf, but still, potentially they are very deadly. Also, burrowed infestors are great at raiding outlying bases. They do force detection. Burrowed roaches definitely force detection in ZvP.
I would like to see less huge army vs huge army, clash, game over. That is not enough fun... it's over too soon, there is less room for interesting things to happen. So I agree with that. I would like to see more harassment that is interesting. There are improvements that can be made... still a damn good game though. But yeah, I hope Blizzard can squeeze even more interesting dynamics in the expansions.
My main gripe with FF is how much it screws with the AI.
However, to demonstrate a more strategic argument.
A terran wall + a tank, may take 100 zerglings to beat. A banshee can kill 1000 zerglings, but not before they eat your base. A forcefield can deny a 200/200 ground army running up a ramp for the duration of the field. Three (3?) sentries can block a ramp indefinitely.
The only way to overcome forcefields is to tech around them. That really isn't true of most other abilities/units. Normally you should tech around them but can also muscle through them (just send a bigger army).
As for the roach. That is an example of bad design in action.
I like the reaper. Oh crap, that means zerg has hydras/zerglings and banelings at T1 vs reapers. Reapers will auto-beat zerg. Oh crap. Umm... move roach to T1. Oh, now its totally wrong. It is too tough, regenerates too fast. Oh we can't have burrow at T1 anymore either. The regenerating raider becomes the short-range tank. Wait Zerg has a tank?? WTF? Zerg is meant to be squishy... Oh well. Oh crap, with range 3, zerg can't bust a wall... etc etc etc. This T2 hydra isn't really... working out.
The biggest problem I find with the colossus is that it collides like air. If it couldn't walk over your own units, it would require a lot more control. Escaping flank-snipes consists of walking onto your own units. It is really a little too mobile for a main-army AOE. Compare the alternatives. Tanks, Templar, Banelings, Ultras, Archons, Hellions. Tanks & Templar are not mobile, Banelings, Ultras & Archons have very short range and Hellions have limited targets.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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.
On January 11 2012 07:19 Millard wrote: Making the post completely negative reduces a lot of legitimacy from the OP. I agree with some things you say (all have been said before), but I think its appropriate in threads like these to include the things SC2 does well, which are more numerous than the problems you've stated.
Agreed. Some missed opportunities. Also, to strengthen the arguments (some of which I think are true, others false) we need examples from actual games. Since release, we've seen a bevy of patches and games that could be used as evidence for or against this.
Sorry that I"m not actually posting counterarguments. When I get home, I"m going to reread this and find appropriate responses.
One more thing: If we're talking bad design, why oh why does the corrupter exist? I might post an analysis later about this unit because it really is one of the most pigeonholed, for specific use only kind of unit.
Oh, another thing I wanted to mention is your topic on static defenses. Since salvage and movable spines, static defenses are no longer so static. This plays into things and perhaps makes them harder to balance.
lolololololololol immortals get pwned by mass tank pretty sure u havent watched day9's mech TvP episode lmao. Tanks pwn everything and when u hear pew pew pew pew sounds from ghosts tanks dont gotta do anything bout broods
The thing is, Big J, SC2 is lucky enough to have BW as a reference for design. Everyone says SC2 is a different game, and that is true, but the design essence of both BW and SC2 is the same.
While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time.
Nony's post says everything better than I could have done:
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
Siege tanks are actually quite potent against any protoss unit - having real problems only against chargelots, but they require proper support. You make it seem as though stargate play is a great threat to siege tanks, but really you're going to have a lot of marines that can melt void rays and phoenixes with ease, vikings which can blast everything apart from range while protected by a few turrets and thors - protoss air can't touch your siege line.
Stalkers, even with blink, die very fast to tanks and are not a good investment. Immortals are quite good against tanks but with ghost support landing a few good EMPs the battle will be far in your favor. The only real threats to tank play are zealots and archons, which can be significantly weaked by good army placement reducing the ability of protoss to engage with all of his zealots and forcing him to clump and landing some good EMPs to kill zealot shields and weaken archons.
I feel like the game needs more units and more early-game tech choices to add more variety to strategy, especially in mirrors. Terran is better off in that department, IMO.
@all the people rolling their eyes because they think it's another BW vs SC2 comparison: Well if it is, so what? Since both share the name of "Starcraft," comparisons between the two is inevitable. Heck, I'll even say that it's desirable. As Tyler said, "we ought to examine [BW] to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games." This applies especially to SC2. I think it's a good reminder of the fact that Starcraft 2 is, after all, Starcraft TWO.
"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."
well there is in every rts you need a good unit control and battle overview (for example react on minimap dots) and you need a speed (in some games you need less but if you are slow like shit and missclick alot you are screwed)
I'm sorry, but reading that what I pretty much see is 'I'm zerg and I don't like ZvP cause I lose to either FF or colossus. Let me distract you with fungal and marauder before I go back to protoss bashing".
On January 13 2012 08:17 Kharnage wrote: I'm sorry, but reading that what I pretty much see is 'I'm zerg and I don't like ZvP cause I lose to either FF or colossus. Let me distract you with fungal and marauder before I go back to protoss bashing".
Don't be like that. Balance issues plague every game, but that doesn't mean every post not outlining a specific build is necessarily QQ. Many people resort to QQ when they're upset, but this thread is a valid, thought-provoking discussion of the smaller details that go into SC2 and BroodWar (and games in general).
The thing is that they have to try and create new and exciting units and abilities... and satisfy bronze league n00bs up to pro gamers and the units can't be broken with anybody
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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.
I still don't understand why ANYONE expects WoL to be this pinnacle of gaming, these things take a lot of time to get right. It won't be until the final expansion that SC2 has fully matured, bad unit design or not.
The thing is, Big J, SC2 is lucky enough to have BW as a reference for design. Everyone says SC2 is a different game, and that is true, but the design essence of both BW and SC2 is the same.
While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time.
Nony's post says everything better than I could have done:
On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Show nested quote +
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
broodwar popularity was medicore outside of Korea in 1990s, and even since then the taste and accustom have drastically changed for gamers in the 2010s.
I think quite a smart move for Blizzard to create/adapt designs that may fit the tastes for modern generation gamers. For such a volatile industry, why would you stick with a decade old game design? what liquid tyler suggesting is suicidal, he did not given much thoughts into them.
I'm just talking about that quotation specifically of course. What I truly feel about sc2 or bw design is not relevant
Section (C) makes a good point, though it's hardly novel and has been better articulated elsewhere. Part (A) and (B) are also all rehashed arguments, and for the most part, they're just plain wrong.
Forcefields, for example, don't "reduce" the micro required to play the game; they increase it, while also adding strategic depth. A huge amount of micro goes into trying to bait forcefields and trying to position your units to either minimize or maximize their effectiveness before they go down. True, you can't micro away from forcefields if your units are totally encircled by them, but saying that they therefore "reduce" micro is a false inference. You might as well say that psi storm reduces micro because if they hit good storms, your units are dead and you can't micro them. The reality is that if forcefields put you in a position where you can no longer micro effectively, it's because you've been thoroughly outmicroed already. The argument that a forcefield on a ramp ends the game is similarly specious because it doesn't answer the question why a forcefield on a ramp shouldn't be able to end the game. After all, a forcefield on a ramp only ends the game if you're already out of position, and being out of position can cost you a game whether forcefields are being used or not.
Similarly, it is simply a mistake to assume that abilities like Fungal Growth or Concussive Shells reduce micro. To be sure, they limit micromanagement options after they've landed, but as with forcefields they place a premium on micromanagement before the fact. Spreading vikings to limit the impact of fungals is micro. Sniping valuable units, and avoiding having your valuable units sniped by concussive shell weilding marauders is micro. Far from limiting the "dimensions of interaction" between players, these units increase them substantially by forcing players to anticipate the opponent's moves rather than simply passively reacting to them.
With the exception of the roach, your criticisms of supposedly "micro-less units" similarly do not hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The suggestion that the collossus does not require micro on the part of the user (while also increasing the importance of the other player's micro) is so laughable that I don't know where to begin. If you believe that, then I can only assume that you've never played with the unit (or against it). Colossus are quite fragile for their cost. They require constant babysitting if you do not want them to be sniped. They place a large premium on positioning--achieved through micro--of both players. Nor can you simply attack-move with colossi, unless you're content to have them attack a nearby assimilator or supply depot while your army dies in vain. They have some of the worst--perhaps the worst--targeting AI in the game and require constant micromanagement to keep alive. Yet you dubt this a "micro-less unit"? Insanity.
Your arguments regarding the thor are similarly baseless. In many situations, it's critical to micro manage your thors in order to maximize their effectiveness by specifically targeting clumped air units. Indeed, you even point out the unit's poor targeting, while seemingly neglecting to realize that the premium this puts on micromanagement. To be sure, the unit is slow, and difficult to reposition in battle, but the same can be said of the reaver in brood war, and no one who has played that game thinks that unit is "micro-less."
Your objection to the phoenix is, to be frank, puzzling. You seem to have a problem with the fact that it moves while attacking, but you fail to articulate what your problem with it is. You write that it "removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot," but the ability to move while firing has little to do with the former: the unit is no less able to be told specifically what to attack than any other, nor does it place less value on doing so. As for the latter, there's rarely much deliberation about "when" to shoot in this game with any unit. Indeed, other units automatically engage hostile targets that are in their range. Do you have a problem with that too? If not, I see no substance to your objection regarding the phoenix.
Overall, this thread is only slightly better than its predecessor. Similarly lacking in originality, most of its points are without any merit and are just poorly disguised whines that have little to do with game design. A better and more focused topic would have focused on the critical issues presented in section (C) rather than wasting time rehashing the tired and largely unfounded arguments of sections (A) and (B).
In response to the above poster, when the OP means micro-reducing abilities, what he means is that the opposing player can't do anything in response to them, therefore it becomes a one sided player interaction (if I understood the OP correctly).
Forcefields and FG are micro-reducing in this sense because once cast, the victim can't do anything until the spell subsides. Although I think one point the OP missed is Terran using Medivacs to lift units, which is a valid micro response to free units trapped in Forcefields. But if your army eats an FG, then too bad, you just have to take the damage.
On the other side of the coin, consider spider mines and dark swarm. Once a player lays mines, the other player can try to target them down, or even try to drag them into enemy units and cause a "daebak" explosion. If he's not paying attention or doesn't have that level of control, then sure, the mines just kill everything. But there is a choice and available response. Dark swarm is the same, once it's cast, the (let's say Terran) player has to respond by unsieging and retreating his army. Then the Zerg can move his Lurkers forward, and it becomes a push-pull battle where the Zerg slowly gains ground.
Yes, FF and FG require micro in terms of positioning, but the contrast is between micro that occurs pre-spell and micro that can occur after a spell has already been cast. SC2 has a lot more of the former, whereas BW had a balance between the two (storm, stasis, plague are examples of the first type, whereas mines, dark swarm and to some extent Reavers are examples of the second type).
I'm sorry, are you meaning to suggest that burrowed infestors and burrowed roaches are not threats to a detection-less opponent? I must have misunderstood you.
As for micro-reducing abilities, it's an old argument, and not necessarily a false one, but it needs to have some massive caveats on it. First of all, the range on force field is not all that long. A range 9 forcefield would certainly just be a game-destroying element. In its current state, it instead just generates new and diverse gameplay. In your terminology, it creates new dimensions of interaction between players.
RTS's in general, including BW, have always had a great deal of strategy built around the principle of basing combat and engagements on your surroundings. SC2 has the entirely new element of actually giving the player the power to create terrain that's favorable to their purposes. Cutting armies in half, cutting off retreat paths, denying attempts to run by defenses and cause havoc, or even interesting possibilities like blocking DTs from your base until you get detection up are generated by this ability. The relationship between player and terrain has always been complex and multi-dimensional, but up until now it has only been one-way, terrain affecting the player (with the occasional small exceptions, like destructible terrain, mineral walls, etc). Making this a 2-way relationship has very interesting implications, and dimensions of play are increased, not decreased, by adding this ability.
These abilities also create much more interesting tactical decisions for the attacking player. If you can't afford to let your units get trapped in, then you have to stay out of range of sufficient numbers of sentries. This encourages considering the existing terrain, for instance avoiding enclosed areas and preferring more open ones. This also creates multi-dimensional tactical decisions when engaging the enemy; a few melee units in the front of the army will do wonders for your engagement. Short of that, shorter-range units are a good choice. Even better from a tactical perspective, units that don't want to be hit by zealots should be in back. If the Protoss tries to move forward to forcefield behind your entire army, then you have to back up to behind the sentries' range, thus creating a fighting game-style spacing element to combat.
Fungal growth creates interesting decisions for both players as well. For the infestor-ing player, placement of fungal growths becomes an exercise in both mechanics and strategy; on the one hand, you want to hit the largest clump of units, but there's also a preference for hitting the front units to avoid something running in to kill your infestors. Then there's the issue of where to engage with infestors and what units to use for backing up your infestors, thus creating another situation in which the infestor-ing player prefers closed spaces, while the opponent prefers open spaces. For the other player, on the other hand, there is suddenly a powerful motivation to have smart tactical gameplay, particularly regarding formations. Obviously RTS's always have the incentive to have the DPS in front where it can hit the opponent, but there's also a great deal of incentive to space out in response to an AoE attack. Since infestors do best against a clumped opponent, and lings do best against a spaced-out opponent, infestor ling has serious potential for abusing whatever formation the opponent chooses.
Concussive shells and "micro-reducing abilities" in general deny the opponent the opportunity to effectively retreat. This is not bad game design. This has always been one of the advantages of faster units: retreat is impossible. Now retreat is being denied by a different means, but the effect is the same, and not a negative one. It allows the player using the ability to be a little bolder with their units, since they can retreat and their opponent can't, and it forces their opponent to be more hesitant to move out, choose their engagements carefully, and maintain map awareness. A zerg afraid of being forcefielded out of their main has to maintain good map awareness and have the army ready to defend on either side of the ramp at a moment's notice. A Terran afraid of getting caught unawares by an excellent fungal growth has to keep their marines in a dispersed formation and send stimmed marines around when moving out to find the position of the enemy army. In other words, these abilities are generating interesting gameplay, not destroying it.
i completely agree with you on all points in this thread and the last. i don't really watch SCII mainly because of the reasons you have pointed out. the people disagree with you are... legimiate in the origins of their feelings. Balance theory and cognitive dissonence will have a lot to do with any disagreements. However the same could be said for me as I watched BW for many years. But hopefully the logic i see in your descriptions in a reflection of how things really are and not just me wishing for the "good ol days"
im not sure what is the best course of action for blizzard as i'm fearful that i am in a minority of people that want a better SCII with better mechanics and unit designs... perhaps the majority of people enjoy SCII they way it is and for the sake of maximizing utility we should just let them have their fun. however an SCII without all these flaws would be truly something worthwhile.
The thing is, Big J, SC2 is lucky enough to have BW as a reference for design. Everyone says SC2 is a different game, and that is true, but the design essence of both BW and SC2 is the same.
While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time.
Nony's post says everything better than I could have done:
On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Show nested quote +
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
broodwar popularity was medicore outside of Korea in 1990s, and even since then the taste and accustom have drastically changed for gamers in the 2010s.
I think quite a smart move for Blizzard to create/adapt designs that may fit the tastes for modern generation gamers. For such a volatile industry, why would you stick with a decade old game design? what liquid tyler suggesting is suicidal, he did not given much thoughts into them.
I'm just talking about that quotation specifically of course. What I truly feel about sc2 or bw design is not relevant
. .
The game was still a huge success outside of Korea going into the millenium. At the time it was one of the best-selling games outside of Korea as well. As for now? The industry is a lot bigger. You cannot compare the numbers from now to the past. It doesn't work that way.
Third time this week I've caught you doing something like this (not in this thread alone). Next time please use a reference point before talking about such statistics.
Yes, Blizzard has shown us time and time again that they try to make each title in the series unique if WCII <---> WCIII and SC:BW <---> SC2 are any indication. Even though D.B.'s RTS canon is very similar in comparison we cannot hinge on that in this case because there was a lot of input from the artists on this title. I digress!
Blizzard wanted to open new doors. Heck, they even wanted their parents to be able to enjoy the game. That's all fine and dandy, but my biggest gripe I have with the Blizzard team is putting unit looks before anything else. It's just not practical. There will be a lot of hits and misses.
That's where the basics of all RTS come in. We have to consider every RTS on the market to gauge the good from the bad before expanding upon it.
Things can be grouped into smart design or poor design. This goes for any game. Not just RTS.
Once again I'm repeating myself. There is nothing old or antiqued about BW's game design. For those unexperienced with it, the U.I. looks daunting. U.I. is nothing more than the rulebook of engagement in the game. In other words, no two line passes! It only helps dictate the flow alongside the units, maps, A.I., etc. It's all about the state of mind and perspective in which you view it. You want to make it more user friendly so more gamers can get into it? No problem! I insist. Just remember, somethings can be good others can be bad. Regardless of good or bad, there will be a domino effect once you start tinkering around with any model.
There is nothing suicidal about NonY's suggestion when we're talking about the principles of RTS. It doesn't start and stop with the Starcraft and Warcraft series either. We have to consider everything we know about RTS as a whole when we're talking about the game design.
(re: the OP) I read your first part first, and I got a bad vibe of throwing-out-babies-with-the-bathwater. I'm glad to see the suggestions in this part, like the force fields with HP. I think it's much more interesting to think about what could be some Starcraft 2-esque solutions, without abandoning the advantages of the current mechanics.
To contrast, in the first part, I hated that the suggestion for unlimited-size control groups was to re-limit them - isn't there any way to distill the problem down further? And for the ball mechanic, why not try to think up a way for control groups to remember their formation more "strongly"? Suggesting to go back to Brood War's mechanics makes me cringe.
For example, I was kicking around the idea of having units in control groups interpret move commands almost as if they were individually-microed "in formation" move commands on the minimap. (There's UI details to resolve, like how to handle adding units to the control group - do we rally units to the median location of the group? - and handling the orientation of the formation.) This would have the side benefit of being more useful for small formations (with large formations, you'd get mismicros, like units going on the wrong side of a cliff), so that helps with the first problem, too. This isn't too fleshed out yet, but it's just an example; I'm sure there's tons of other potential ideas to toy with.
On a different note, I'd like to see your opinion on the HotS Terran shredder unit, and how it might help out with making terrain control more important?
There's no battle where you go, “man, that guy had such great colossus control. If he played worse there he'd have lost it.”
Huh?? I seem to remember colossus micro being a huge feature of colossus-vs-colossus battles - the person that had less-clumped-up colossus would win. That's the only context where I can think of colossus micro, though.
I've kind of stayed away from this thread, but I'm surprised at the amount of resistance being shown to what I essentially see is the idea that using prior knowledge is paramount to understanding what works and what doesn't. It's not just about what worked in BW and making comparisons to SC2. People need to accept that doing so isn't necessarily putting on rose tinted glasses. I could make comparisons to Dune 2 and comment about design differences in either a positive or negative light.
A fairly straightforward comparison would be the evolution of resource gathering in RTS games. Dune 2 through till C&C Generals relied upon a system whereby trucks would gather resources from a field. Resources were generally located across a wide patch of land. This is at odds with Warcraft and Starcraft which contained more concentrated patches (gold mines/minerals) C&C Generals adopted a similar style with its resource collection points, and there are some good reasons why having concentrated resources is a good idea.
It creates clear cut strategic points on the map. Base locations are decided wholly upon resource deposits. Might seem obvious, but if resources are spread out all over the map, it's not obvious where the optimal location for a base is, and many choices can be reasonable. Also, it means that workers/harvesters have to travel outside the base to collect. It's like your only option being long distance mining, and also having to mine 200 minerals in a single trip. Not only does such huge jumps in resources result in bumpy macro, but worker harassment becomes the core strategy.
Of course, various experiments have been tried over the years for different resource gathering mechanisms. Z was an RTS where holding more control points resulted in faster build times for units. Of course, that kind of fell over when you realised the best strategy was to scramble to capture any amount that was slightly more than your opponent, and then hold that advantage as long as possible (which would only ever get easier over time).
Other games have used mechanisms like decreasing income depending on your army size, to prevent players from simply sitting on an advantage that will only ever grow (e.g. using a big army to capture more of the resources on the map and hold them, starving an opponent out).
SC2 has evolved from other RTS titles, learning from those lessons:
1. 2 vespene geysers allow for finer control over your gas income 2. Standardised amounts of mineral patches at bases, and in general standardised patch locations. 3. A hard limit on the speed at which a patch can be mined, creating a maximum income from one base.
It's easy to take this stuff for granted, and I know macro mechanics are planned to be covered in future, no doubt that'll talk about this sort of stuff too.
But seriously, go back and play Dark Reign, or Ground Control, or some other RTS. Realise how insane their designs are in comparison. Recognise that creating a balanced RTS with 3 different races is still in its infancy, despite being considered almost standard compared to your old school 2 race paper/scissors/rock examples.
I don't necessarily agree with EternalLegacy in the sense that I would only feel compelled to point out where mistakes have been made before, shown to be poor design, and there is evidence of an objectively superior design choice. I don't think there are examples of that in SC2, perhaps because I'm not an ex-BW fanatic who can percieve all the lessons learned there. Most of my RTS experience is in horribly broken titles from the 90s. But I will say I applaud the attempt to not just describe perceived problems with the game's design, but articulate why in such detail and depth.
SC2 has evolved from other RTS titles, learning from those lessons:
1. 2 vespene geysers allow for finer control over your gas income 2. Standardised amounts of mineral patches at bases, and in general standardised patch locations. 3. A hard limit on the speed at which a patch can be mined, creating a maximum income from one base.
1. Zerg armies are tiny, gas builds require less investment, or makes cheese more powerful. 2. What happened to balance? 3. How is this good? In SC2 there is a flat income increase per workers. BW had decreasing returns per worker, this meant that having more bases un-saturated was much better than having less saturated bases. The BW way required more strategy and macro skill.
On January 13 2012 06:46 Kring wrote: Another sc2 vs bw thread - in disguise.
Care to explain further how is he making this thread a Sc2 vs Bw thread ? I don't see any point he is raising here as saying one game is superior than another hence he is being objective which is good .
The thing is, Big J, SC2 is lucky enough to have BW as a reference for design. Everyone says SC2 is a different game, and that is true, but the design essence of both BW and SC2 is the same.
While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time.
Nony's post says everything better than I could have done:
On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Show nested quote +
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
broodwar popularity was medicore outside of Korea in 1990s, and even since then the taste and accustom have drastically changed for gamers in the 2010s.
I think quite a smart move for Blizzard to create/adapt designs that may fit the tastes for modern generation gamers. For such a volatile industry, why would you stick with a decade old game design? what liquid tyler suggesting is suicidal, he did not given much thoughts into them.
I'm just talking about that quotation specifically of course. What I truly feel about sc2 or bw design is not relevant
Go to the esport slide and watch it says right there, "you are going to need to build on the original or you are going to fail"
And they did the way the gameplay works is very similar to broodwar and there a lot of units from broodwar that work just like they did in broodwar. I don't see how using broodwar inspiration for a few more subtle parts like noticing armies look better if they spread out a bit(still with good path finding) or new units that control space better would have been so suicidal compared to what they did.
About 9.5 million copies of the original StarCraft have been sold globally, according to Blizzard, which does not release breakdowns for individual countries.
South Korea, however, accounts for almost half of the sales. HanbitSoft, the local distributor, says StarCraft has sold 4.5 million copies there.
Wow it sold over 1.5 million worldwide in those two years! That's more than some other modern rts's released in that time frame with new modern design but your right modern gamers would have hated something like broodwar. It sure is risky to make a game just like that one that outsold every other rts ever made and was still selling well a decade later.
I mean if broodwar really was a decade old game with mediocre popularity why were so many people hyped and excited for a sequel making it sell millions right away without Korea? Why isn't dawn of war 2 or something getting all that hype and sales it plays nothing like broodwar so it must be good and modern for modern gamers!
because I got quite a few responses (just not from the guy I was talking to):
On January 13 2012 06:56 fabiano wrote: The thing is, Big J, SC2 is lucky enough to have BW as a reference for design. Everyone says SC2 is a different game, and that is true, but the design essence of both BW and SC2 is the same.
While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time.
Nony's post says everything better than I could have done:
On January 12 2012 01:36 iky43210 wrote: it smells bias when you do every one of your comparison with broodwar. This shows your lack of knowledge in the RTS universe in general and perhaps unwilling to accept advantages and good aspects other famous RTS games have.
It simply becomes a strong opinionated post when first thing you do is make a thread and do a one way comparison of X game with Y game, just let it go.
Broodwar is not popular and did not kick off anywhere else but Korea. Just a food for thought
BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it.
Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best.
yeah. that's all fine and right and everything. But first of all, as Tyler said: BW was the only RTS game that has ever been figuered at this level. We don't know, if other concepts (the CnC superhardcounter system, in which MG - infantry doesn't do shit to a tank, but they kill other infantry in a few shots; other ressource gathering systems; other map layouts; tech trees in which low tier units become more and more useless...) wouldn't work as well or even better on high level And therefore it just makes sense (especially if you are blizzard and you have NEVER done a plain sequel... since WC2) to experiment around a little bit with such stuff (and it is only a little bit! SC2 is still kind of close to BW)
On January 13 2012 07:42 TaShadan wrote: "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."
well there is in every rts you need a good unit control and battle overview (for example react on minimap dots) and you need a speed (in some games you need less but if you are slow like shit and missclick alot you are screwed)
If you play a RTS game like WC3 Tower Wars 1.9 (you build towers for defense and you send units to run through your opponents maze/attack his towers), you don't even have control of your units. And the speed argument is mechanics, which I said was probably very transferable to any game.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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).
Everything in this post is correct, except maybe the part about Tanks holding their own?
They function much better due to instant hits and splash and clumped units, but they also take up 3 food in a food strapped game. Tanks were never meant to really hold anything alone unless there were a lot of them. I don't think tank use in SC II has been explored as much as it can be by a long shot.
Its true that forcefield and fungal does promote other micro/preperation like positioning and baiting. Thats how sc2 players have come to adapt. What i think, along with many others, wants to see more micro orientated plays like loading up on medivacs vs forcefield, splitting against banelings, vulture/dragoon, irradiate, lurker/marine, splitting vs reaver, etc.
What i mean is that, its fine one unit has a clear advantge over the other, but micro should be able to minimize that gap. This still exists in sc2 but minimal and has become blatant like zealot vs marauder.
Little less focus on composition and little more on micro. This is what sets apart between two players. I think micro should reward more than composition, imo.
Dont take it word for word, just trying to get the idea across.
On January 13 2012 18:18 jinorazi wrote: Its true that forcefield and fungal does promote other micro/preperation like positioning and baiting. Thats how sc2 players have come to adapt. What i think, along with many others, wants to see more micro orientated plays like loading up on medivacs vs forcefield, splitting against banelings, vulture/dragoon, irradiate, lurker/marine, splitting vs reaver, etc.
What i mean is that, its fine one unit has a clear advantge over the other, but micro should be able to minimize that gap. This still exists in sc2 but minimal and has become blatant like zealot vs marauder. Little less focus on composition and little more on micro. This is what sets apart between two players. I think micro should reward more than composition, imo.
Dont take it word for word, just trying to get the idea across.
YES exactly. for example in TvZ even with smaller army you can still fight cost-efectively with good target firing and micro. In TvP when you have not enough vikings to kill their collo fast enough you can't do shit.
On January 13 2012 18:18 jinorazi wrote: Its true that forcefield and fungal does promote other micro/preperation like positioning and baiting. Thats how sc2 players have come to adapt. What i think, along with many others, wants to see more micro orientated plays like loading up on medivacs vs forcefield, splitting against banelings, vulture/dragoon, irradiate, lurker/marine, splitting vs reaver, etc.
What i mean is that, its fine one unit has a clear advantge over the other, but micro should be able to minimize that gap. This still exists in sc2 but minimal and has become blatant like zealot vs marauder. Little less focus on composition and little more on micro. This is what sets apart between two players. I think micro should reward more than composition, imo.
Dont take it word for word, just trying to get the idea across.
YES exactly. for example in TvZ even with smaller army you can still fight cost-efectively with good target firing and micro. In TvP when you have not enough vikings to kill their collo fast enough you can't do shit.
and do you know, for ZvT, your scenario is the opposite. Less units and micro = lol just die. and in ZvP, the scenario is exactly the same for zerg as it is for terran. not enough corroptor or they die too fast = lol just die.
Additionally, zerg was the swarm race. brood war zerg was cheap, supply efficient, and fast. sc2 zerg is expensive, supply inefficient, and moderately fast to mediocre. Zerg was the race that used slightly less micro by making up for that in numbers of correctly picked units. zerg now has a deficit in this corner, and also must micro like mad to whittle down T or P forces before or during a fight in order to win a battle, and if zerg has less forces, microing doesn't mean shit.
So you as Terran have at least one non-mirror matchup where you can micro better with a smaller force and win. Thats one more than zerg gets. I hope that with your frustration at colossus now you can understand zerg frustration with both T and P.
On January 13 2012 18:18 jinorazi wrote: Its true that forcefield and fungal does promote other micro/preperation like positioning and baiting. Thats how sc2 players have come to adapt. What i think, along with many others, wants to see more micro orientated plays like loading up on medivacs vs forcefield, splitting against banelings, vulture/dragoon, irradiate, lurker/marine, splitting vs reaver, etc.
What i mean is that, its fine one unit has a clear advantge over the other, but micro should be able to minimize that gap. This still exists in sc2 but minimal and has become blatant like zealot vs marauder. Little less focus on composition and little more on micro. This is what sets apart between two players. I think micro should reward more than composition, imo.
Dont take it word for word, just trying to get the idea across.
YES exactly. for example in TvZ even with smaller army you can still fight cost-efectively with good target firing and micro. In TvP when you have not enough vikings to kill their collo fast enough you can't do shit.
and do you know, for ZvT, your scenario is the opposite. Less units and micro = lol just die. and in ZvP, the scenario is exactly the same for zerg as it is for terran. not enough corroptor or they die too fast = lol just die.
Additionally, zerg was the swarm race. brood war zerg was cheap, supply efficient, and fast. sc2 zerg is expensive, supply inefficient, and moderately fast to mediocre. Zerg was the race that used slightly less micro by making up for that in numbers of correctly picked units. zerg now has a deficit in this corner, and also must micro like mad to whittle down T or P forces before or during a fight in order to win a battle, and if zerg has less forces, microing doesn't mean shit.
So you as Terran have at least one non-mirror matchup where you can micro better with a smaller force and win. Thats one more than zerg gets. I hope that with your frustration at colossus now you can understand zerg frustration with both T and P.
I think you got it backwards in BW. Zerg is the race that used the most micro to make supply inefficient armies beat bigger armies. 3 lurkers on a ramp = infinity marines held. 1 Swarm + a few lurkers = natural cannot be broken.
Most of zerg's units actually get eaten up moving from position to position, rather than in direct combat. Once in position, zerg was stupidly supply/cost efficient.
All the races worked that way though. Terran mech was absolutely ludicrous to engage into if set up, but easily toppled if out of position. Terran had to sacrifice infinity vultures to move tanks into better positions.
Protoss is the least positional race, but PvZ was exceptionally positional, because protoss had to fortify bases with cannons + reavers + HT, any of which would be decimated on their own, and any of which are fragile out in the open. Not to mention, P had to hide behind cannons until necessary techs were ready. Cannons are the positional unit for protoss. They're how you secure territory without a major force.
...Just so people have an understanding of how units in BW worked positionally.
And your point regarding SC2 is exactly my biggest gripe, which is that if your army is smaller you almost always lose.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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).
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.
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.
On January 11 2012 06:53 Treehead wrote: I like the general flavor of the article - that this game needs more options centered around controlling terrain and less options around building an army, that this game needs units with more micro (and to make the micro required cause a unit to be more rewarding than 1aing marauders, roaches or colossi), and that the lack of useful static defense is hurting the game. I agree with the general spirit that the game needs to turn more towards chess, and less towards... whatever 1a-ing armies against each other is supposed to be. However, I think some of the specific complaints are either wrong or misleading. I think the sentry and phoenix are interesting units micro-wise, and are adding to the interactions of the game.
I’d love to see protoss get a space-controlling unit. That will probably never happen, though. Expanding in any matchup as P is real scary right now.
Actually, this said everything I wanted to say but couldn't find the right words for. Well done.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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 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.
On January 11 2012 03:45 Markwerf wrote: Pff alot of these are just disguised balance whines. First of all you don't seem to know that much about gamedesign I'm realising. Complexity is not the holy grail in game design which your article does make it seem to be. Depth while remaining clarity is important. Chess is a great game because it's complex but still relatively easy to understand and thus strategize for, you don't have to know how to win directly for example by simply focussing on winning pieces allowing for people to plan strategies while not being experts. Go on the other hand is by many players especially in more Western societies deemed as too complex because it's very hard to set intermediar goals for the game because the game is more difficult to set subgoals for.
Microless units are needed to create important units, if each unit had many abilities etc it would become too chaotic or complex. The microless units you mention are not poorly designed at all imo in fact many of them have interesting abilities i think. Roach for example may look like a boring vanilla unit but wasn't the hydra in BW as well? Roaches being no AA means there is much more room for air units to play a crucial role in XvZ matchups a great design choice imo. The only poor unit design mentioned in this article here is the colossus, not per se because it's boring in itself but because of the counterunits (viking and corruptor) that there are which invalidate other cool units (battlecruiser and carrier).
In the same vein I don't see units that restrict micro as poor either. In the case of the sentry there is plenty that can be done about it for example, flanking, dropping, burrow, fungal, emp, etc.etc. Losing to it is aggrevating perhaps but that doesn't make the design poor, it's just a hidden balance whine.. Stasis and lockdown where liked abilities as well how are stuff like fungal etc different? If truly nothing could be done about these abilities then it might be problematic but there really is plenty you can do, for example marauder kiting can be solved by forcefields so these 'unfun' mechanics can perfectly solve eachother.
The point about a slight lack of zone control units I agree with but saying siege tanks don't fulfill that role now is silly. The entire TvZ matchup and TvT matchup revolve for a large part about zone and map control because of the siege tank. Saying this doesn't work properly is just silly, breaking siege lines is still very hard. The problem is just that you seem to be comparing the game to BW too much, yes PvT is not the same and the PvT there is now might not as good the BW variant but that doesn't mean the tank is broken.. they just chose an other path for sc2.
All this pretending to be some game design guru while it's just an elaborate balance whine basically is annoying. The conclusion is also just complete bogus.
This is so horribly written I just have no words for it.
First off he had a whole section which detailed how adding complexity is not always the best thing. Second you keep constantly saying about how this entire thing is a balance whine. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK SIR. A balance whine against who? Units from every single race were talked about! His whole entire post explains that sc2 is very simple to play, but lacks depth (if you read part 1 as well).
Microless units are bad for the game, pure and simple. What you are confusing (which I would expect from a person who sounds like he's played BW twice) is micro with units which have abilities or spells. A unit with good micro potential does not necessarily mean that it has some sort of interesting gimmick about it. Look at classic examples. The zergling has no special ability and yet due to its speed and surface area requirement to do damage, micro is a necessity to be effective with the zergling.
The one thing I agree with in this post is that things that restrict micro are not always bad. For example the reason the reaver was considered such a good unit was because it was slow and required micro. The way that sc2 does it though is to take micro completely out of the equation. Force fields which completely seal off roaches make it impossible for the roaches to get out and they are essentially dead. FG on a group of marines make it impossible for marines to escape and they're dead. There needs to be something that a player could do to minimize damage. A couple ideas that I've had is killable force fields with high armor or make FG a single cast ability which spreads to units clumped up next to the infected. This way getting caught by one fg doesn't mean the entire army dies.
The poor design choice behind the colossus is not due to its counters. The poor design choice is due to the fact that it is a pure class cannon just like the siege tank which is countered by everything and nothing. The fact that positioning almost doesn't matter for colossi is what makes them a poor design choice is that they are a damage machine which benefit almost nothing from being microed in a battle. If you think that pulling your colossi back is "adequate micro" then you need to go watch some reaver shuttle micro.
Last thing is please don't use BW units as examples. It seems to me like you've played BW maybe a total of a dozen times if that. The hydralisk needed to be microed to be good. Positioning, flanking, and kiting are key for hydras. You may say that the roach does the same thing, but positioning becomes null and void when you have more roaches. Flanking becomes dangerous because of how close roaches have to get to their targets. Kiting is useless if you have more roaches or they have a bigger army. Stasis lockdown were not used as spells to restrict micro. Stasis was used as a method to minimize dps of tanks. Lockdown was on the same vein. They cost too much energy to be used on a retreating army.
The way that sc2 does it though is to take micro completely out of the equation. Force fields which completely seal off roaches make it impossible for the roaches to get out and they are essentially dead. FG on a group of marines make it impossible for marines to escape and they're dead. There needs to be something that a player could do to minimize damage. A couple ideas that I've had is killable force fields with high armor or make FG a single cast ability which spreads to units clumped up next to the infected. This way getting caught by one fg doesn't mean the entire army dies.
There is something players do to minimize damage it's called positioning, yes if you keep your army in one giant ball FF, Fungal and EMP will trash you but that's not because the spells are too powerful it's just that they are very good at punishing players who are lazy about their positioning. Now you need to bait spells, split your army and be careful about where you engage.
Last thing is please don't use BW units as examples. It seems to me like you've played BW maybe a total of a dozen times if that. The hydralisk needed to be microed to be good. Positioning, flanking, and kiting are key for hydras. You may say that the roach does the same thing, but positioning becomes null and void when you have more roaches. Flanking becomes dangerous because of how close roaches have to get to their targets. Kiting is useless if you have more roaches or they have a bigger army.
I can say the same to you, it seems like you've played Sc2 maybe a total of a dozen times. Positioning, flanking and kiting are just as important for the roach in Sc2 as they were for the hydra in Sc:BW.
Simply A-Moving more roachs will never "solve" sentries, simple A-moving more roachs will never "solve" Marauders, no amount of roachs can simple engage a Marine/Tank wall head on profitably and your comment about kiting is completely nonsensical, yes you don't need to kite vs Ling/Bling or zealots if you have enough roachs but it's still more cost effective to do so then not and yes if they have enough of an army you can't kite it to death with Roachs but again you still get more use out of them then you would if you just A Moved.
Stasis lockdown were not used as spells to restrict micro.
So Stasis, maelstorm and lockdown just removed units ability to move or attack but didn't restrict your ability to micro....
OP, i've learned in making these threads you have to exclude any comparison to or mention of BW, or SC2 players wil immediately be turned off to your arguments and just cry "this game isn't BW!", ending alll rational discussion.
Force fields are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than stasis though. Maelstorm and lockdown were far from being needed to the standard game, they are used to do some rare fancy tactics.
But FFs are part of the core Protoss strategies, without it you die.
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?
On January 13 2012 18:18 jinorazi wrote: Its true that forcefield and fungal does promote other micro/preperation like positioning and baiting. Thats how sc2 players have come to adapt. What i think, along with many others, wants to see more micro orientated plays like loading up on medivacs vs forcefield, splitting against banelings, vulture/dragoon, irradiate, lurker/marine, splitting vs reaver, etc.
What i mean is that, its fine one unit has a clear advantge over the other, but micro should be able to minimize that gap. This still exists in sc2 but minimal and has become blatant like zealot vs marauder. Little less focus on composition and little more on micro. This is what sets apart between two players. I think micro should reward more than composition, imo.
Dont take it word for word, just trying to get the idea across.
YES exactly. for example in TvZ even with smaller army you can still fight cost-efectively with good target firing and micro. In TvP when you have not enough vikings to kill their collo fast enough you can't do shit.
and do you know, for ZvT, your scenario is the opposite. Less units and micro = lol just die. and in ZvP, the scenario is exactly the same for zerg as it is for terran. not enough corroptor or they die too fast = lol just die.
Additionally, zerg was the swarm race. brood war zerg was cheap, supply efficient, and fast. sc2 zerg is expensive, supply inefficient, and moderately fast to mediocre. Zerg was the race that used slightly less micro by making up for that in numbers of correctly picked units. zerg now has a deficit in this corner, and also must micro like mad to whittle down T or P forces before or during a fight in order to win a battle, and if zerg has less forces, microing doesn't mean shit.
So you as Terran have at least one non-mirror matchup where you can micro better with a smaller force and win. Thats one more than zerg gets. I hope that with your frustration at colossus now you can understand zerg frustration with both T and P.
I think you got it backwards in BW. Zerg is the race that used the most micro to make supply inefficient armies beat bigger armies. 3 lurkers on a ramp = infinity marines held. 1 Swarm + a few lurkers = natural cannot be broken.
Most of zerg's units actually get eaten up moving from position to position, rather than in direct combat. Once in position, zerg was stupidly supply/cost efficient.
All the races worked that way though. Terran mech was absolutely ludicrous to engage into if set up, but easily toppled if out of position. Terran had to sacrifice infinity vultures to move tanks into better positions.
Protoss is the least positional race, but PvZ was exceptionally positional, because protoss had to fortify bases with cannons + reavers + HT, any of which would be decimated on their own, and any of which are fragile out in the open. Not to mention, P had to hide behind cannons until necessary techs were ready. Cannons are the positional unit for protoss. They're how you secure territory without a major force.
...Just so people have an understanding of how units in BW worked positionally.
And your point regarding SC2 is exactly my biggest gripe, which is that if your army is smaller you almost always lose.
Your point is valid and Blizzard "seems" to agree with you. Everyone wants a more "stable" game that allows a player who dots their i's and crosses their t's to win. Blizzard has said that they are trying to "pull food out of the ball" with HotS. They don't want to break with the game that have right now, since creating a balanced game of any kind is difficult as it is. I have hopes that the game will move away from the ball, or at least make it risky. There is some merit to putting all your units together and making a huge push, but it should not be the default.
The problem is that all of this takes time. They need to create a game, give it to several million people, let those people break it, fix it, let them break it again, fix it. At some point, they add new units in and the process starts over. BW is amazing, but it has such a history to draw on. So many disproven theories on how to play and a wealth of evidence to back that up. SC2 has none of this and won't for some time. I respect that BW is a deeper game, but that has more to do with the amount of time it has been around. If you released a "new" BW on the same engine with different units and abilites, its play would like look as simple as SC2's does. Only after years of play are those units and abilities refined down to their perfect uses.
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)
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.
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
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
Lol no, he brought up swarm specifically to contrast it to Fungal. Fungal is just watch your Marines fall over once it's been cast. What micro does it "increase"? -_-
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.
Now. BW did have stasis, which was also friendly fire and actually prevented any damage to the units underneath. Now admittedly, at a newbie level, stasis is actually equally annoying. But it's very late game, it is used as crowd control at the back of the tank lines, costs a lot of energy and can't mess up the entire army. You can also emp it or target fire it with goliaths. Zerg it was never much of an issue because the arbiter could be sniped too easily.
Maelstrom and lockdown were very situational and were equally hard to perform as there is no smart casting (possibly the other problem with these spammable spells.) The more often your micro is limited the more irritating it is. In the case of SupCom2, I am irritated every time I play it because the units are not at all responsive with so-called 'smart' or 'automated' fighting with super slow movement. Boring as hell because my micro is limited every moment of the game.
Edit. Although BW hydras and SC2 roaches are both massable units, I don't think the value of micro'ing them is quite the same. Consider the interplay between storm vs hydra and storm vs roach. Now admittedly no Zerg wants to weather the storm, but if you didn't micro hydra's and the storm would hit- you would die. If the Protoss was Jangbi, he could melt the entire hydra army. But it was super hard to get all the storms off, so storm was allowed to be powerful.
Take the roach, if you don't micro them at all, the roach comes out with just under half of it's hitpoints. Not nearly as big a deal (Because storms are spammable, they need to be weaker.) The end result of this is you had a lot more back and forth micro with different hydra group, trying to bait the high templars to waste precious storms: Storm Dodging. It required such fine tuned control or you'd just lose an entire control group completely. Vs simply walking through a storm and be mildly unhappy.
It's more of that 'twitchy' control like muta stacking, vulture micro, hold position dragoons, and storm dodging hydra's that we are looking for when we say we'd like more micro.
Spread marines and shoot and scoot is a start. And can't we all agree that these are some of the more interesting interplays between units? Or Hero stalker micro in the early game... until a dang passive upgrade (Concussive) completely negates an entire method of micro. That's just poor design imo. If we can agree that these moments are awesome, then can we agree that SC2 could use even more of these opportunities? And stop calling edging collosi forward a bit and then backing them up a little bit impressive micro on par with marine spread vs banelings? Fast paced, 'twitchy' control. Instant reflex.
Also Battlenet latency- I wonder does this effect anything? Because muta micro is very difficult if not possible when you're on Battlenet 1.0 vs iCCup or Fish.
SC2 has evolved from other RTS titles, learning from those lessons:
1. 2 vespene geysers allow for finer control over your gas income 2. Standardised amounts of mineral patches at bases, and in general standardised patch locations. 3. A hard limit on the speed at which a patch can be mined, creating a maximum income from one base.
1. Zerg armies are tiny, gas builds require less investment, or makes cheese more powerful. 2. What happened to balance? 3. How is this good? In SC2 there is a flat income increase per workers. BW had decreasing returns per worker, this meant that having more bases un-saturated was much better than having less saturated bases. The BW way required more strategy and macro skill.
I don't quite understand where you're getting these conclusions from.
2 vespene geysers doesn't necessarily equal more gas... The intent I saw in that was just what I said, finer control over the income. if you have a single geyser at all bases, you'd need to double the mining rate to maintain the balance, therefore meaning you either open no gas or double gas, effectively. And so on with each base. I don't see how your conclusion makes sense.
The standardised patches and patch locations serve balance in the sense of ensuring all bases are equal as much as possible. Thats more a map design aspect, of course, but the way resources are implemented supports this kind of balanced approach. If this isn't, what is?
The point on decreasing returns per worker is intruiging. I would argue that securing multiple unsaturated bases is still a viable and desirable strategy, given the decrease in income close to saturation still exists, but I' be wary of suggesting that designing so that 5+ mining bases is standard as opposed to 3+. I would think that would require larger maps overall and make it difficult to defend. But that's just theory.
Although BW hydras and SC2 roaches are both massable units, I don't think the value of micro'ing them is quite the same. Consider the interplay between storm vs hydra and storm vs roach. Now admittedly no Zerg wants to weather the storm, but if you didn't micro hydra's and the storm would hit- you would die. If the Protoss was Jangbi, he could melt the entire hydra army. But it was super hard to get all the storms off, so storm was allowed to be powerful.
Take the roach, if you don't micro them at all, the roach comes out with just under half of it's hitpoints. Not nearly as big a deal (Because storms are spammable, they need to be weaker.) The end result of this is you had a lot more back and forth micro with different hydra group, trying to bait the high templars to waste precious storms: Storm Dodging. It required such fine tuned control or you'd just lose an entire control group completely. Vs simply walking through a storm and be mildly unhappy.
If yoou just walk in with a group of roachs you just get FF'ed and lose them all to the HT/Immo's for free; instead you see roach groups split up and a lot of back and forth micro done with Slings/Roach/Bling trying to bait Sentries or Templars into wasting precious FF's and storms. I mean dodging storms was/is much easier and forgiving then dodging forcefields as you could still back out vs. storms
So what's the difference other then one was BW and one was Sc2?
On January 14 2012 06:23 intrigue wrote: great post, falling.
Most of the posturing in SC2 happens before the actual engagement and one misstep can leave you crippled. In other words, more emphasis is put on proper preparation rather than reactionary engagement. You fuck up; you fuck up good.
You see a lot of players move forward and then back again to bait out spells so when they do engage full-on there is less worry. We still have snipes, which are good.
If yoou just walk in with a group of roachs you just get FF'ed and lose them all to the HT/Immo's for free; instead you see roach groups split up and a lot of back and forth micro done with Slings/Roach/Bling trying to bait Sentries or Templars into wasting precious FF's and storms. I mean dodging storms was/is much easier and forgiving then dodging forcefields as you could still back out vs. storms
Dodging FF's and storms in SC2 isn't less foregiving - there's no forgiveness to it at all. If they're good enough to get the FF's down, the units trapped are dead, and you need to get in range of FF to be able to attack. That doesn't make it a good mechanic because it only requires one person to play well.
Storm dodging in BW was something completely different. Moving units was harder, and while he can certainly guarantee that you'll take some damage from his storms, you can also mitigate some of it, so that if he does well placing them and you do well dodging them, you're on an even playing field.
In SC2, you have to convince the person with the anti-micro ability to mess up - because if they don't you can't mitigate it. This is why there's no complaint about SC2 storm - it hurts and is kinda easy to use, no doubt. But if you storm well and your opponent micros well, you don't necessarily come out behind. But if you FF well or fungal well, that's the end of the story. That's why it's a bad mechanic - there's no interaction. You use it well or you don't and that's the end of it - it's all on the player with the FF/Fungal.
You might not see this in your play because the people you're playing against haven't fine-tuned their play to the point where they don't miss an opportunity to FF. People aren't there yet - so it seems balanced but only because your opponent is still very fallible. If it's still there in a few years, FF and "baiting" is going to feel very, very different.
Big J, for the past couple of pages you keep missing the point, in fact you've missed it from the begining. Yes FF does encourage another kind of micro in that you want to bait and and split etc but, and this is what the OP keeps saying, if you could destroy FF, you could add an entire new dimension to dealing with them. FF overall punish you way too much for not micro-ing against them, what if you could also micro while trapped?
Why does FF need to only have one type of micro atached to and around it, why not also focus on dodging them (early game), and even destroying them (late game), but still with emphasis on dodging them even late game so you don't waste DPS. Why does FF have to be such a one dimensional spell and why, for the entirety of the duration of this thread you had to focus only on a one dimensional focus, and refuse to accept that, maybe there is a better way.
Fungal falls in the exact same category, too punishing if you get hit by it. If you not only could split your units, but also had alternatives to getting out of fungal (or minimizing the root/turning it into a slow), it would become an even better spell.
And you keep comparing Terran control units to stuff like FF and Fungal is just wrong. The point of terrain control units like Tanks, Swarm Lords, Lurkers etc, isn't too limit micro, it is in fact to encourage different kind of strategies and tactical play around the map, FF and FG are battle control, tanks are space control. You actually can brute force your way trough a fortified position, provided you will take heavy losses and sometimes it isn't the best course of action, but space control doesn't automatically cut of all avenuse of attack or micro in an area (someting FF and FG do once they hit), it actually encourages more avenuse of attack.
Instead of going for a frontal attack, you could go for drops, some harass, perhaps siege with higher tech of your own, or lure an army out of position and then you destroy the entrenched position. If you feel confident enough though you can try to brute force it, thats the beauty, all options still remain open, FF and FG close as many options as they open.
Although BW hydras and SC2 roaches are both massable units, I don't think the value of micro'ing them is quite the same. Consider the interplay between storm vs hydra and storm vs roach. Now admittedly no Zerg wants to weather the storm, but if you didn't micro hydra's and the storm would hit- you would die. If the Protoss was Jangbi, he could melt the entire hydra army. But it was super hard to get all the storms off, so storm was allowed to be powerful.
Take the roach, if you don't micro them at all, the roach comes out with just under half of it's hitpoints. Not nearly as big a deal (Because storms are spammable, they need to be weaker.) The end result of this is you had a lot more back and forth micro with different hydra group, trying to bait the high templars to waste precious storms: Storm Dodging. It required such fine tuned control or you'd just lose an entire control group completely. Vs simply walking through a storm and be mildly unhappy.
The main point I'd like to bring up is that Storms are much weaker because everything bunches up a lot more. You tend to hit a lot of roaches with a single storm in this game, compared to how much you would hit in BW (even taking into account the reduced area). This is why AoE of all sorts has been so reduced both in range and damage but still is absurdly effective.
Though with KA out, storms could be a bit more powerful imo. At least it doesn't sound crazy to me.
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.
Now. BW did have stasis, which was also friendly fire and actually prevented any damage to the units underneath. Now admittedly, at a newbie level, stasis is actually equally annoying. But it's very late game, it is used as crowd control at the back of the tank lines, costs a lot of energy and can't mess up the entire army. You can also emp it or target fire it with goliaths. Zerg it was never much of an issue because the arbiter could be sniped too easily.
Maelstrom and lockdown were very situational and were equally hard to perform as there is no smart casting (possibly the other problem with these spammable spells.) The more often your micro is limited the more irritating it is. In the case of SupCom2, I am irritated every time I play it because the units are not at all responsive with so-called 'smart' or 'automated' fighting with super slow movement. Boring as hell because my micro is limited every moment of the game.
Edit. Although BW hydras and SC2 roaches are both massable units, I don't think the value of micro'ing them is quite the same. Consider the interplay between storm vs hydra and storm vs roach. Now admittedly no Zerg wants to weather the storm, but if you didn't micro hydra's and the storm would hit- you would die. If the Protoss was Jangbi, he could melt the entire hydra army. But it was super hard to get all the storms off, so storm was allowed to be powerful.
Take the roach, if you don't micro them at all, the roach comes out with just under half of it's hitpoints. Not nearly as big a deal (Because storms are spammable, they need to be weaker.) The end result of this is you had a lot more back and forth micro with different hydra group, trying to bait the high templars to waste precious storms: Storm Dodging. It required such fine tuned control or you'd just lose an entire control group completely. Vs simply walking through a storm and be mildly unhappy.
It's more of that 'twitchy' control like muta stacking, vulture micro, hold position dragoons, and storm dodging hydra's that we are looking for when we say we'd like more micro.
Spread marines and shoot and scoot is a start. And can't we all agree that these are some of the more interesting interplays between units? Or Hero stalker micro in the early game... until a dang passive upgrade (Concussive) completely negates an entire method of micro. That's just poor design imo. If we can agree that these moments are awesome, then can we agree that SC2 could use even more of these opportunities? And stop calling edging collosi forward a bit and then backing them up a little bit impressive micro on par with marine spread vs banelings? Fast paced, 'twitchy' control. Instant reflex.
Also Battlenet latency- I wonder does this effect anything? Because muta micro is very difficult if not possible when you're on Battlenet 1.0 vs iCCup or Fish.
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
It's more of that 'twitchy' control like muta stacking, vulture micro, hold position dragoons, and storm dodging hydra's that we are looking for when we say we'd like more micro.
Spread marines and shoot and scoot is a start. And can't we all agree that these are some of the more interesting interplays between units? Or Hero stalker micro in the early game... until a dang passive upgrade (Concussive) completely negates an entire method of micro. That's just poor design imo. If we can agree that these moments are awesome, then can we agree that SC2 could use even more of these opportunities? And stop calling edging collosi forward a bit and then backing them up a little bit impressive micro on par with marine spread vs banelings? Fast paced, 'twitchy' control. Instant reflex.
very nicely wrote and this is exactly what i want more of from sc2.
i must say that the standards of "impressive micro" has gone way below with sc2. any pro's storm or FF aren't impressive at all to me because its something that any competent players can do. (same with colossus) it was something to look at in awe in bw with the lack of easy casting. i just want more opportunity where great micro can shine(like marine splitting) in sc2 and not let battles be determined by unit composition.
i want more micro abilities that can make pros shine and the average players strive to improve.
its same reason why i'm sooooo against the shredder. (sorry for mentioning it many times)
Although BW hydras and SC2 roaches are both massable units, I don't think the value of micro'ing them is quite the same. Consider the interplay between storm vs hydra and storm vs roach. Now admittedly no Zerg wants to weather the storm, but if you didn't micro hydra's and the storm would hit- you would die. If the Protoss was Jangbi, he could melt the entire hydra army. But it was super hard to get all the storms off, so storm was allowed to be powerful.
Take the roach, if you don't micro them at all, the roach comes out with just under half of it's hitpoints. Not nearly as big a deal (Because storms are spammable, they need to be weaker.) The end result of this is you had a lot more back and forth micro with different hydra group, trying to bait the high templars to waste precious storms: Storm Dodging. It required such fine tuned control or you'd just lose an entire control group completely. Vs simply walking through a storm and be mildly unhappy.
If yoou just walk in with a group of roachs you just get FF'ed and lose them all to the HT/Immo's for free; instead you see roach groups split up and a lot of back and forth micro done with Slings/Roach/Bling trying to bait Sentries or Templars into wasting precious FF's and storms. I mean dodging storms was/is much easier and forgiving then dodging forcefields as you could still back out vs. storms
So what's the difference other then one was BW and one was Sc2?
The difference is during the battle itself. I will concede, there is a lot of micro'ing pre-battle. (I would argue, aethetically the grouped up army makes it hard to distinguish, but that's another point.) And I think players will continue to get better at this and perhaps we'll see better splits and multi-prong engagements prebattle. Both BW have a lot of jockying back and forth pre-battle. Whether storm baiting by BW hydra's or FF baiting by SC2 Zerg's. And then in SC2 both sides engage and the micro comes to a screeching halt for one side.
So we have micro, micro, micro. SPAM FF! SPAM STORM! And the you just have to wait until your army dies or the FF's wear off. Whichever comes first. I think that's partly what Day9 is talking about when he believes BW units can move from .75 effectiveness to x9. Partially it's that reflex control like vulture micro. Partially it's the continued micro during the battle itself. Because let me tell you, it's not the first of Jangbi storm's that is impressive, it's when it continues, and continues, and continues during the battle and you are sitting at home freaking out at how awesome the micro is during the battle itself. Same with storm baiting, the first couple storm dodges are impressive, but the more he continues to dodge consecutively the more crazy it is.
Now imagine, you put all this effort into pre-battle micro set-up, then BLAM! half your army is stuck and you can't move it anymore. It's that rising tension as both players are continue to counter each micro move and counter and counter and counter. FF's and FG are unforgiving in the binary sense. You are stuck or you're not. Storm dodging are unforgiving in whether you predicted where he was going to land his next storm and whether your reflex was fast enough to dodge. And if you mess up, a control group dies. But it was all based on prediction and reflex. Not outwaiting the FG timer.
Although BW hydras and SC2 roaches are both massable units, I don't think the value of micro'ing them is quite the same. Consider the interplay between storm vs hydra and storm vs roach. Now admittedly no Zerg wants to weather the storm, but if you didn't micro hydra's and the storm would hit- you would die. If the Protoss was Jangbi, he could melt the entire hydra army. But it was super hard to get all the storms off, so storm was allowed to be powerful.
Take the roach, if you don't micro them at all, the roach comes out with just under half of it's hitpoints. Not nearly as big a deal (Because storms are spammable, they need to be weaker.) The end result of this is you had a lot more back and forth micro with different hydra group, trying to bait the high templars to waste precious storms: Storm Dodging. It required such fine tuned control or you'd just lose an entire control group completely. Vs simply walking through a storm and be mildly unhappy.
The main point I'd like to bring up is that Storms are much weaker because everything bunches up a lot more. You tend to hit a lot of roaches with a single storm in this game, compared to how much you would hit in BW (even taking into account the reduced area). This is why AoE of all sorts has been so reduced both in range and damage but still is absurdly effective.
Though with KA out, storms could be a bit more powerful imo. At least it doesn't sound crazy to me.
Oh storms are balanced. They're just not very impressive because everything is bunched up and because of smart casting. So storm had to be nerfed to be balanced. Both I think are mistakes that reduced the ability for pro's to separate themselves from everyone else. It's just better showbiz to watch a couple lightening storms go down and actually kill something then to see the entire screen covered in storms and even the workers survive! It becomes a glorified debuff rather than a killing blow. Continued discussion on Storm's and Smartcasting for newbies vs pro's + Show Spoiler +
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.
Except newbie players probably aren't going to focus on spamming storms so much because of limited apm. Collosi are easier. And because of aforementioned reasons, storms don't kill very many things outright, the ability as a whole is actually not very epic.
I would argue that the BW storm is more epic, even for newbies. I recall in 07 when I first switched from Terran to Protoss playing with some of my friends vs computers. We were 3 humans vs 2 computers with my 20apm, barely surviving for 2 hours/ never leaving our base. And just defending, defending, defending our choke point. I might get 1 or 2 storm off in a wave attack. But I felt epic. Hydralisks melted, dragoons were on death's door, even tanks were horribly mauled. Muta's just barely survived and zerglings and marines melted completely. There was tremendous power in the old storm that just isn't there anymore.
And getting 1 or 2 storms off was motivation to try and get even more off because the results were so impressive. And they were so impressive because it was hard to do and units were more spread out.
So I really believe we are killing epic moments for our viewing experience with the pro's as well as killing the epic moments for the newbies when you can kill a ton of stuff with 1 or 2 storms.
On January 12 2012 09:44 Jehct wrote: This topic: a bunch of SC2 players getting upset that people with any kind of BW experience think the game can be improved.
If we went to the BW forum and continually made threads about how BW needs to be improved to be more like SC2 we would get banned so why on earth do you think it's acceptable for BW fans to continually come to the SC2 forum and tell us how our game needs to be made more like BW so it's actually good?
Brood War is a better and more successful competitive game and Starcraft 2 is a direct sequel. Obviously there will be comparisons.
See here is what you don't seem to get.
We don't think BW is a better game then SC2, we love SC2 not BW, no amount of posting about how our game is inferiorly designed, how our scene is a farce and how bad our pros are is going to change this. If we wanted to watch BW we would watch BW, we don't begrudge you the game you love so please return the courtesy and don't come into our home and try to evangelize about the game you love.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but just about everyone thinks BW is a better competitive game than SC2, including every single SC2 pro-gamer. I still like Starcraft 2, in fact, I play and follow the game way more than Brood War. That's the very reason I would like to see it improved, and what better way than to draw on inspiration from its successful and amazing predecessor? If you want to claim the SC2 forum as the place for people who think SC2 is the superior game, then I just don't think team liquid is meant for you, sorry. Maybe try Reddit?
this. I love sc2, but there are certainly scenarios that could be improved. I think the OP touched on some of these in surprisingly unbiased manner.
I'm very interested in the evaluation of the effects of micro reducing abilities. As an avid DotA player, I'm used to micro reducing abilities being a central feature of the game. General consensus is that these are harmful in sc2.I understand the that the games are different, but why are micro reducing abilities bad here but not there?
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.
On January 13 2012 04:34 JieXian wrote: Yes, the first year of sc/bw was much worse.
But you have to understand that gaming has changed a lot since 1995 when SC came out. I'm sure you'll agree these assumptions :
People who played SC thought, "wow this game looks cool! Aliens vs bugs vs humans whoaaaa!"
People come into SC2 thought : "Wow this game's going to be popular I should quit BW/WC3 (or any other game) since it's dying anyways/since I can't go anywhere with it anyways and the money will be gooooood."
Or "Wow I have a chance to get good money playing games I need to practice really hard to be good."
When people had problems in the first year of SC, they have figure out how to solve it themselves. There were no replays back then.
When people had problems in the first year of SC2, they can just look for replays on how other people are dealing with it and learn/copy from them. Or rewatch their replay 10 times to come up with a solution.
These are general statements and assumptions but I'm sure you can agree with me now that comparing the first year of both games is ridiculous.
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 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?)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 21:25 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...
On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote: 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.
On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote: I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing.
Confirmed for just not getting it. In your mind, it seems, controlling space and reducing micro are the same thing. This is entirely false. In BW specifically, it's more like the opposite -- units which control space do not reduce the other player's ability to micro, but oftentimes they increase the need for the other player to micro.
In general, when you post any kind of comparison to Brood War, you confuse the two. From earlier,
On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote: Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit your 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.
In the Brood War cases, you're more than welcome to run your units into siege lines or burrowed lurkers. You can choose to fight under dark swarm. You can also choose not to do that, and choose to disengage instead. Depending on the circumstances, any of these things can be beneficial. Because of the design of these units and their abilities, interesting gameplay emerged. As an example you've already acknowledged, tanks in siege mode do extreme damage to any enemy target in range, but they overkill and splash each other, so zealot bombing came about. Similarly, lurkers do extreme damage in a line, but if they aren't being babysat then their attacks can be controlled away from a main force by an attacking player using a "tanky" unit -- think of an M&M force using 1 D-matrixed marine to draw lurker attacks to push up a ramp. Even more interesting is that the lurker's attack can be dodged. And dark swarm...it's absurd that you even added dark swarm as a micro-reducing ability, as it practically exemplifies micro-increasing abilities, sorry.
Notice that, in all of the above situations, neither player is actually helpless to control their units because of the other player's actions. Contrast this with SC2 for yourself.
You say others can't see the "beauty" of SC2, but -- assuming you haven't -- maybe you should try BW yourself, see what all the fuss is about?
On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote: 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.
On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote: I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing.
Confirmed for just not getting it. In your mind, it seems, controlling space and reducing micro are the same thing. This is entirely false. In BW specifically, it's more like the opposite -- units which control space do not reduce the other player's ability to micro, but oftentimes they increase the need for the other player to micro.
yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to get to. Maybe didn't make it clear enough as it has been a long multiple day discussion (and well you obviously did cut the other parts of those discussions and I'm not gonna look through everything right now to quote myself if I can write it once again maybe more clearly as it seems like I didn't).
Just like siege tanks, Infestors with fungal force your opponent to micro harder against them. They have to be pre split and continously split their units during the battle. They have to be more careful where to engage. They have to "snipe", actually snipe or EMP the infestors. Infestors are a form of zone control unit. They might be weaker in that point that siege tanks and easier to deploy offensivly, still I fail to see how engaging Infestors is less micro intense than engaging an opponent who does not have them. BEFORE the fungal growth hits you, you will have to micro way more against an Infestor player, just like you have to micro more against siege tanks BEFORE your units die. In my eyes it is pretty much the same concept when talking about marines vs Infestors or marines vs Siege Tanks. True Infestors don't need to siege. They also do less damage and have less range and are therefore pretty hard to handle themselves.
That's what I was trying to get. Just because something prevents micro when used efficiently, doesn't mean that the overall micro is not being increased by it. Judging from all the micro reducing abilities and units in SC2, BW and WC3 (in order of the amount of knowledge I have about those games), I would even say that the rule is that such units usually increase the micro that is needed when engaging them. Might not be true for everything (FFs in my eyes are not such a thing, but even that might be just my biased zerg views). Even more so, the Mothership + blink + colossus + HT vs Corruptor/Infestor/Broodlord + support army battles that are right now the usual lategame in ZvP are some of the most micro intense situations I have yet seen in SC2 BECAUSE of Vortex.
On January 14 2012 23:02 MinusPlus wrote: In general, when you post any kind of comparison to Brood War, you confuse the two. From earlier,
On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote: Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit your 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.
In the Brood War cases, you're more than welcome to run your units into siege lines or burrowed lurkers. You can choose to fight under dark swarm. You can also choose not to do that, and choose to disengage instead. Depending on the circumstances, any of these things can be beneficial. Because of the design of these units and their abilities, interesting gameplay emerged. As an example you've already acknowledged, tanks in siege mode do extreme damage to any enemy target in range, but they overkill and splash each other, so zealot bombing came about. Similarly, lurkers do extreme damage in a line, but if they aren't being babysat then their attacks can be controlled away from a main force by an attacking player using a "tanky" unit -- think of an M&M force using 1 D-matrixed marine to draw lurker attacks to push up a ramp. Even more interesting is that the lurker's attack can be dodged. And dark swarm...it's absurd that you even added dark swarm as a micro-reducing ability, as it practically exemplifies micro-increasing abilities, sorry.
Notice that, in all of the above situations, neither player is actually helpless to control their units because of the other player's actions. Contrast this with SC2 for yourself.
You say others can't see the "beauty" of SC2, but -- assuming you haven't -- maybe you should try BW yourself, see what all the fuss is about?
yeah you can also choose to throw infested terrans at siege lines, charge in with flanks and countersplit banelings to prevent siege damage and keep them efficient against splitting marines, while your mutalisks try to snipe unprotected tanks or magic box thors and zerglings try to surround... And you know how terrans play vs infestors these days? pre split. Always presplit. Stim very small groups forward, to snipe infestors. Leapfrog tanks and keep them split and well positioned. And you know why? Because you need to be more careful and more micro intense when engaging those.
Personally I notice the ball vs ball trend is starting to go away except in TvP, at the highest level of competition.
Because for some race you're just not going to beat their "ball", or can possibly reach the optimal composition anytime faster in any ZvX games. You usually have to split up his attention and multi-attack, such in TvZ, PvZ, and TvT. ZvZ pre-roach have alot of ling/bling dynamics.
When I say highest level of play, I mean only code S level of play. It seems most foreigners are still stuck in ball vs ball mentality and its why they aren't doing so well.
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.
OMG FINE! remove conc shells. But its not fair to just nerf marauders so they should get a buff in some other area. Im thinking they should do 15 damage to zealots instead of 10. I would give up conc shells for that and now you can micro your stalkers hearts out
On January 14 2012 08:39 Falling wrote: Continued discussion on Storm's and Smartcasting for newbies vs pro's + Show Spoiler +
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.
Except newbie players probably aren't going to focus on spamming storms so much because of limited apm. Collosi are easier. And because of aforementioned reasons, storms don't kill very many things outright, the ability as a whole is actually not very epic.
I would argue that the BW storm is more epic, even for newbies. I recall in 07 when I first switched from Terran to Protoss playing with some of my friends vs computers. We were 3 humans vs 2 computers with my 20apm, barely surviving for 2 hours/ never leaving our base. And just defending, defending, defending our choke point. I might get 1 or 2 storm off in a wave attack. But I felt epic. Hydralisks melted, dragoons were on death's door, even tanks were horribly mauled. Muta's just barely survived and zerglings and marines melted completely. There was tremendous power in the old storm that just isn't there anymore.
And getting 1 or 2 storms off was motivation to try and get even more off because the results were so impressive. And they were so impressive because it was hard to do and units were more spread out.
So I really believe we are killing epic moments for our viewing experience with the pro's as well as killing the epic moments for the newbies when you can kill a ton of stuff with 1 or 2 storms.
One of my first reactions to things like FFs was “how the hell does it last 12 seconds?” Looking at feedback vs. EMP I dislike the idea that a ghost dies thanks to the targeting and instant casting and EMP has the possibility to negate storms completely. I guess I don’t like the idea of strong spells because it makes the game less “stable” (yet more entertaining to watch, more tension). So looking back at FFs I felt like spells could be weakened to such extent that pulling off the first EMP doesn’t mean zero energy but simply less storms and pulling off the first feedback doesn’t mean a dead ghost but less EMPs. FFs could last 3-4 seconds so that you have to keep them up, but as it’s been pointed out it’s a wrong concept altogether. All in all, this seems like a simpler solution but it would bring more ability spam and less entertainment.
The opposite route, the hard to pull off but greatly damaging solution seems like a way better idea, the issue is how to make it harder to pull off. Removing smartcasting for some of them is a good idea, but it’d have to come with unit overhaul and many other changes as it solves only a fracture of the problems. It's an interesting concept nonetheless (a UI limitation which feels less contrived and archaistic than limited unit selection).
On January 14 2012 23:43 iky43210 wrote: Personally I notice the ball vs ball trend is starting to go away except in TvP, at the highest level of competition.
Because for some race you're just not going to beat their "ball", and you usually have to split up his attention and multi-attack, such in TvZ, PvZ, and TvT. ZvZ pre-roach have alot of ling/bling dynamics.
When I say highest level of play, I mean only code S level of play. It seems most foreigners are still stuck in ball vs ball mentality and its why they aren't doing so well.
This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited.
Hell, I was watching Grubby yesterday in a TvP and the only micro he really did was split up HT into random positions so they didn't all get EMP'd. And this is GRUBBY. There just isn't that much in-fight micro to do. It's all setting up engages and casting spells (which is outrageously easy to do with smartcast and unlimited unit selection).
And it's not that multitask is not interesting, because it is. However, it'd be nice if there was more than one way to show off your skill than dropping 4 places at once. You could do that in BW too, so it's not like SC2 is putting anything new on the table. All that SC2 did was remove a lot of options.
On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote: [quote]
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.)
Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said.
Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to:
The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious.
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.
So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time.
However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
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.)
Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said.
Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to:
The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious.
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.
So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time.
However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
Yeah. Like it has been pointed out, first year of SC2 =/= first your of BW from a point of how much has been developed for obvious reasons. So I just wanted to say that the skill ceiling is really far from being reached. (4th, 5th year of BW...) Something the OP obviously disagrees with:
On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out.
But yeah, I really approve of you telling me that. Also I don't see this as somthing like a figth. I just want to point out why I think SC2 is a really good game, and why I disagree with the OP... Of course it will always be "only" my point of view and can't be generalized. And I also would never argue that BW doesn't take a fuckton of skill, but I just think that the human skill cap is so low, that it actually doesn't matter if you play BW or SC2. You will always be limited by yourself and not by the game IF the game gets figuered out. But I definatly SEE possibilities and approaches of gamers, that look extremly promising for a more micro and multitask intense SC2. I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both.
On January 14 2012 23:43 iky43210 wrote: Personally I notice the ball vs ball trend is starting to go away except in TvP, at the highest level of competition.
Because for some race you're just not going to beat their "ball", and you usually have to split up his attention and multi-attack, such in TvZ, PvZ, and TvT. ZvZ pre-roach have alot of ling/bling dynamics.
When I say highest level of play, I mean only code S level of play. It seems most foreigners are still stuck in ball vs ball mentality and its why they aren't doing so well.
This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited.
Hell, I was watching Grubby yesterday in a TvP and the only micro he really did was split up HT into random positions so they didn't all get EMP'd. And this is GRUBBY. There just isn't that much in-fight micro to do. It's all setting up engages and casting spells (which is outrageously easy to do with smartcast and unlimited unit selection).
And it's not that multitask is not interesting, because it is. However, it'd be nice if there was more than one way to show off your skill than dropping 4 places at once. You could do that in BW too, so it's not like SC2 is putting anything new on the table. All that SC2 did was remove a lot of options.
that's not the reason at all. For a while Koreans Protoss were dropping left and right to zerg simply because they cannot get their ball up fast enough and their traditional method of hiding till 200/200 no longer works out after most zerg learn the most efficient way to get close to max up and attack.
Right now protoss are starting to come back because they start to approach PvZ similar to TvZ. Constant pressure, multi-tasks and stop zerg from power droning and expanding.
It also doesn't matter what the reason is, huge ball vs another is really starting to dim out except in TvP. It could be the meta is changing, but it is what pros are heading to at the highest level of play.
Anyway, you're discrediting the amount of micro needed in a TvP. sure, it is less intensive for the protoss side, but not so easy for Terran. You need to focus colo with vikings, kite with bio army all the while trying to catch HT with ghosts and land better EMP. This starts to get more difficult as late game protoss starts to include warp prism in their play to not only to harass but to send in HT faster for storms. Though personally I hated the TvP matchup since it is probably the most unforgiving and boring matchup where usually its one side crushing the other and one battle dictates who wins
On January 13 2012 05:40 EternaLLegacy wrote: [quote]
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.)
Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said.
Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to:
The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious.
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.
So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time.
However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both.
Both macro and micro are very important in BW, and you can totally crush someone if you are very good in either one. But BW is more of a macro than micro game when contrasting with WC3, which is very very heavily focus on intense microing. Macro gets even harder since there isn't MBS and people, even I can talk very long about important fundamentals to macroing effeciently, though much of those information is irrelavant with MBS and auto-mining.
Maybe you see a lot of BW micro because you don't play much of it to recognise it or spot it, because after all when you watch VODs without much knowledge you only see the micro.
And btw my music instruments analogy was agreeing with you. Some skills, and knowledge in music and instruments are transferable and gives a huge advantage in learning a new one, but a lot of basic things have to be practiced from scratch.
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.)
Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said.
Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to:
The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious.
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.
So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time.
However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both.
Both macro and micro are very important in BW, and you can totally crush someone if you are very good in either one. But BW is more of a macro than micro game when contrasting with WC3, which is very very heavily focus on intense microing. Macro gets even harder since there isn't MBS and people, even I can talk very long about important fundamentals to macroing effeciently, though much of those information is irrelavant with MBS and auto-mining.
Maybe you see a lot of BW micro because you don't play much of it to recognise it or spot it, because after all when you watch VODs without much knowledge you only see the micro.
And btw my music instruments analogy was agreeing with you. Some skills, and knowledge in music and instruments are transferable and gives a huge advantage in learning a new one, but a lot of basic things have to be practiced from scratch.
Well, I say broodwar was being developed from the micro side, because when the game wasn't figuered very well, because people started playing with 1base stuff (very little macro needed, a lot of micro needed). Eventually it ended up with both parts being developed heavily. I think in Starcraft 2 it was kind of different (obviously 1base rushes and 2base rushes had to be figuered out). The mindset is rather that you should try to get really good at macro first, before you even try to micro a lot.
Putting this in the day9 contest of "8times more" of units in SC1 and "1.5times more" of units in SC2: If you fight a kind of equally skilled opponent, you will have and 8:8 or 8: 7 times relation between your units in SC1 and an 1.5:1.5 or 1.5:1.4 relation in SC2. So it just makes more sense to give micro a bigger priority to learn first in SC1 and macro a bigger priority to learn first in SC1. That's why I think once the macro is really starting to settle, the micro parts will get a lot more focus (because 2:1.5 will obviously make a HUGE differnce with kind of equal, good macro!)
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.
OMG FINE! remove conc shells. But its not fair to just nerf marauders so they should get a buff in some other area. Im thinking they should do 15 damage to zealots instead of 10. I would give up conc shells for that and now you can micro your stalkers hearts out
This isn't a balance thread!!! Its about game design. All people are saying about the "bad" game design that exists in some SC 2 units is that it could be better. Sooo many people are getting this thread confused.
the game does not suffer from imbalanced, it's just boring to watch compared to BW, especcially the damn TVP
also there is a big lack of good spell, like irradiate, lockdown(wasn't too used because wasn't balanced), statis(ff isn't the same) , dark swarm, ecc... and units that require positioning(mine, lurker)
i'm not talking about bringing back these things, but just add something similar, for example, the shredder is a good idea, but need to be cheap and spammable like mines, just balance it in this way
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.
On January 15 2012 02:15 Rybaia wrote: I would actually like hear what the OP has to say about the Broodlord.
What about it? It's a pretty cool unit that has some great interactions.
Im a Protoss player and still think the archon toliet against Broods is retarded. Its exciting but feels like the game builds up to that one moment of if the archon toliet is successful or not. It cheapens the experience for both the Zerg and the Protoss.
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
Just give it time. SC2 can and will be more exciting than BW as players continue to get better. Just look at how much better games are now compared to the first few seasons of GSL. Everything is dependent on the players and how good they get at the game.
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.
Uh...have you watched high level Sc2 at all?
I mean you have players like Bomber who have gotten famous just off of the strength of their macro.
On January 14 2012 23:31 TaShadan wrote: sry big j but you obviously never played bw at a competetive level
I'm wondering if he ever played BW at all....
So someone makes an argument and rather then respond to it you just throw this around?
Two can play that game, judging by how ignorant your statments about fungal and roachs is I doubt you've ever played Sc2 at a competitive level, hell sometimes I doubt you've played it all.
See isn't this a constructive way to have a discussion?
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).
Corsairs and Valks say hello, I mean Tempest is at least more interesting then them because of how much slower they are then mutas which means you will need to work a lot more to get full value out of them.
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.
Focus fire, land perfect FF's, micro your zealots so they aren't just dancing, position the units you're warping in to get a flank on the Marauders.
Sc2 is a complex game, stop expecting simple answers.
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.
Uh...have you watched high level Sc2 at all?
I mean you have players like Bomber who have gotten famous just off of the strength of their macro.
On January 14 2012 23:31 TaShadan wrote: sry big j but you obviously never played bw at a competetive level
I'm wondering if he ever played BW at all....
So someone makes an argument and rather then respond to it you just throw this around?
Two can play that game, judging by how ignorant your statments about fungal and roachs is I doubt you've ever played Sc2 at a competitive level, hell sometimes I doubt you've played it all.
See isn't this a constructive way to have a discussion?
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).
Corsairs and Valks say hello, I mean Tempest is at least more interesting then them because of how much slower they are then mutas which means you will need to work a lot more to get full value out of them.
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.
Focus fire, land perfect FF's, micro your zealots so they aren't just dancing, position the units you're warping in to get a flank on the Marauders.
Sc2 is a complex game, stop expecting simple answers.
It's possible to have near perfect macro in SC2 because of MBS, at least early/midgame. Any C level iccup player shouldn't have a huge issue doing it. The only exception might be zerg because of the importance of having precise timing on injects. Macro is not impressive on its own. Good macro is just a requirement for being good at all, because it's a pretty low skill ceiling.
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.
Corsairs and valks were interesting because they were fragile on their own and required a lot of babysitting to keep alive. Why? SCOURGE. Scourge punished bad micro from players with those air aoe units. There's no mechanic to force players to be smart with their tempests, at least that we know of. Instead we'll just have floating thors. How interesting...
Blink negating concussive shell doesn't add a layer of micro to the game. It simply restores one that concussive shell took away. If you had neither ability the game would be just as interesting. Blink is a pretty crappy spell in general since it actively defeats positional play and encourages mobile a-move armies.
On January 14 2012 23:51 EternaLLegacy wrote: This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited.
I'm of the opinion that the transition into a more multi-task oriented game is a result of the standardizing of safe, macro build orders removing much of the early-game volatility from the scene (though obviously, not all of it). I'd also like to make the point that just because army vs army battles reward less micro doesn't make the game any less demanding, or challenging than BW. The game simply rewards different skills more heavily than the corresponding skill set in BW. So where micro was heavily rewarded in battle in BW, now multitasking during a battle is heavily rewarded (also, I'm not convinced that we aren't going to see some insane micro coming out in our army vs army battles in the future, making the units easier to use SHOULD eventually result in the units being capable of achieving MORE than they could in BW, where you had to fight with the AI just to make the unit do the basic action you wanted done).
Just as a typical new player learns the game starting with one-base cheese, into 2-base cheese, into 3-base ball of death, into proper, high skill play... We've watched the pro scene do the same thing. Go back and watch the VODs of the first GSL. Most games were won based on the success or failure of a one-base all-in. Over time, that turned into 2-base plays, and so on. For a few months we were watching the death-ball plays from the pros, and now they're learning how to play in a way that defeats the ball of death.
It's how most strategy games develop in their play, and if it weren't for HOTS and LotV coming out so soon and ruining the development of WoL, we'd begin to see some amazing things out of it by the time it's 10 years old too, just like we did in BW. As it stands, we would have to wait for LotV, and lets be honest with ourselves here, we KNOW that they'll release a new version before that game's fully developed too. The main point that I want to make here is that the common argument that SC2 takes "less" skill to succeed in than BW is flawed. Our players are just as capable of carrying out multiple actions per minute in SC2 as they were in BW, but since it's a different game, with different mechanics, our players are still working out how best to carry out the actions they're capable of to reward their skill.
Your point on micro being "limited" holds a touch of fallacy to it too. To reference Day9's 'baseball vs frisbee' argument. I would put it out there that BW handed you a defective frisbee, one that wobbles in the air no matter how you throw it, but with persistence, you can figure out how to make it do what you want, more or less. Unfortunately, some things you can do with a brand new frisbee are absolutely impossible to do with your broken frisbee, but given how difficult it is to use the broken frisbee, you can dominate just by learning how to make the broken frisbee work in the standard way a brand new frisbee will.
In SC2, we've been handed a brand new frisbee. It's MUCH easier to use than the broken frisbee, so all the things that used to impress us with the broken frisbee are par-for-the-course. Now, there are LOTS of things that were IMPOSSIBLE with the broken frisbee, that we can eventually learn to do with our brand new frisbee, but we're so boxed in with our old thought patterns and habits that we're happy to play the game the way we did with the broken frisbee, and haven't yet explored all the cool new things that are now possible with our brand new frisbee. With time, someone REALLY good is going to come out and show us how to use the new frisbee properly, but for now, we're happy playing as if we're using the broken frisbee, because it's easy and comfortable for us.
Having said all that, it's absolutely possible that I'm dead wrong in my assessment of where this game should end up. But I'm also aware that only time will tell, and if by the end of next year, we aren't seeing new and innovative play that continues to separate the best from the also-rans, I'm more than willing to admit that I was wrong the whole time. But so far the argument that "give it time, the game will reward skill and get better" has been proved ACCURATE. I don't believe that you can show me that the overall play of our best players in 2010 is the same, or worse than the overall play of our best players in 2011. The skill is increasing in this game, and we're being rewarded with exciting, epic matches as it does. More exciting, and more epic than anything 2010 gave us, and I'm confident that the same will happen as the game progresses through 2012.
Nemireck, I don't think it's a good idea to look too much into analogies and comparisons as things become unclear and sometimes ridiculous. The purpose of the frisbee vs baseball argument is to have a reference that you can have an emotional connection to. You might be able to relate to Sean's comparison, having played frisbee with a bunch of friends in the past. The result is, if the situations are actually comparable that people will also view his actual argument on a more emotional level.
I mean, it's not so hard to understand: some units have higher micro potential. I think you can argue for that being a good thing in itself without having to call on frisbees and baseballs, but I guess it's hard to feel the same urgency if the argument is made that way.
However, if you create ridiculous situations about defunct frisbees and new not-wobbly frisbees the emotional connection is gone and the analogy ceases to have any useful purpose.
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.) Furthermore, because it makes a difference which way the turret faces and tanks overkill, it actually makes a huge difference when and where and how you engage. So with overkill, it will insta kill certain units and leave the rest unscathed. This gives a greater dynamic to the battlefield in that BW is made up of short bursts of high damage in specific areas based on player decision making. SC2 AoE tends to spread out the everywhere, but takes out a lot of that decision making that much more limited, focused damage bursts allow.
Reaver damage really varies depending on which unit you target based on which direction the splash damage goes. That sort of predictable asymmetrical damage allows for greater variance in decision making and results rather than evenly spreading damage across the entire battlefield.
Furthermore, you keep on confusing abilities that threaten zones with abilities that literally prevent you from moving your units no matter how much you click on them. As I said before, both games have pre-battle micro. You have argue eloquently for the amount of splitting and set-up goes into avoiding these SC2 spells. I agree. And I think pro's will get even better during the pre-battle set-up. But that's what it is, pre-battle set-up. BW has that too.
The difference is once you engage. Zealots are pre-spread out and sent in first to tank, followed by dragoons and after the storms come down (depending on whether you cloned your storms before or stormed after the battle started.) If the terran set up mines poorly, you might even mine drag some into his line. And during the battle you can grab groups of zealots to target fire tanks or spread out and force the tanks to shoot at each other. But once you run out of zealots your dragoons are going to die fast... so you grab your units and click back and they will retreat. Vs SC2's FG where certainly you can focus fire. But as soon as those FG or FF get spammed down... you can no longer click your units and move them. I don't know how this can be seen as anything other than limiting micro. You literally cannot move those units and not just some. Smart casting means a whole ton get's clogged up.
Vs something like Dark Swarm. That get's thrown down and it forces micro. After it's thrown down. As soon as the Terran sees those orange clouds going down, he's getting the hell out of there to avoid getting slaughtered by cracklings and lurkers. Even think of marines vs banelings. They have the pre-battle micro and set-up, but when the battle begins you can continue to micro your units. And that's what makes it marine splits vs banelings so cool. We didn't suddenly prevent one side from being able to control their units once the battle begins. Both sides are microing all their units until the bitter end or one side retreats.
It's the difference of being able to micro through the entire battle rather than suddenly have it come to a screeching halt once FF surround your army.
But it's more than spells. It's that twitch, rapid pace micro like muta stacking that dances around the periphery, sniping any lone unit, but if they fly straight into the marine group they'll get massacred. Or scourge vs muta and absolute precise control required to pick off the scourge without it catching up and exploding. The game engine itself as well as LAN latency allowed this refined micro to occur.
Or the type of precise reaver control where it actually made a difference whether you targetted the forward tank, back tank or side tank and which way the turrets were facing and if you can bait the tanks into firing against a zealot so you can drop, fire, and pick up your reaver before retreating back to avoid getting sniped. Rather than perfectly microing a handful of units to completely preventing the opponent any chance of control. (Even in the case of zealot bombs, tanks could unsiege quickly if it was beneficial to do so. And tanks could actually kite zealots if they were unsieged.)
Or microing carriers- it wasn't just a prebattle positional micro, but endless harassment of attack-retreat, attack-retreat and always trying to keep your interceptor attacking as you hug cliffs to avoid goliath fire.
tldr. Limiting micro= you click on your unit and it will no longer move and there's nothing you can do but wait. ...Actually, I almost feel like deleting my 'essay' and just write this instead.
Side Issues: Zealot Charge and Tanking units as a concept + Show Spoiler +
Zealot charge bugs me a little because you actually have to fight against automation to make it work properly. In addition, it's attempting to automate something that worked perfectly fine in the hands of pro's. Speedlots allow for much more precise control because they will do what you tell them to do. Chargelots always run the risk of doing something stupid because it's automation kicks in. To me, this is the wrong sort of automation and the sort that's frustrating to deal with.
It's kinda like the auto-cover mechanics in the Mass Effect series. They're trying to make it easier, but it also has the tendency to stick to walls or the cover mechanic won't kick in when you want it to. You could argue that this makes it 'harder to micro' as you try and figure out how the automation handles. But it's the wrong sort of 'hard.' It's the sort that makes you frustrated because you're trying to peer around the corner to get a good shot, but the cover mechanic is keeping you glued to the wall. Whereas a manual crouch button and precise left-right controls would perform the same function without all the frustration of fighting against the automation. It also allows for more possibilities as automation governs behaviours. If it wasn't programmed, the automation doesn't kick in and there's no way to figure out a new possibility even if a clever person could figure it out with the right control.
I mentioned that zealots tanked in BW, but this wasn't so much by design so much as it turns out zealots were cost-effective and could survive 3 shots vs the dragoon surviving 2 shots to a tank. Now by not designed, obviously because of the size mechanic, it was clearly designed that zealots being a small unit so a tank's damage would be reduced. But I don't think the zealot was specifically designed as a tanking unit. It just happened to fill that function in PvT. And really, I think that's the better way to go about it. Player's will automatically find their cannon fodder that will survive enough hits that will allow the rest of their army to close the distance and fire.
But creating a unit around the concept of "this unit will tank damage" is a really boring concept design in my opinion. The 'unique' ability is to survive a really long time. It's the old roach, marauder, and immortal problem. I think it was Day9 that said that 'If you lose to roaches, you didn't macro correctly. There is nothing tricky about roaches.'
Not that every needs a gimmick, but a unit designed to survive a long time and nothing else? Meh.
On January 14 2012 23:51 EternaLLegacy wrote: This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited.
I'm of the opinion that the transition into a more multi-task oriented game is a result of the standardizing of safe, macro build orders removing much of the early-game volatility from the scene (though obviously, not all of it). I'd also like to make the point that just because army vs army battles reward less micro doesn't make the game any less demanding, or challenging than BW. The game simply rewards different skills more heavily than the corresponding skill set in BW. So where micro was heavily rewarded in battle in BW, now multitasking during a battle is heavily rewarded (also, I'm not convinced that we aren't going to see some insane micro coming out in our army vs army battles in the future, making the units easier to use SHOULD eventually result in the units being capable of achieving MORE than they could in BW, where you had to fight with the AI just to make the unit do the basic action you wanted done).
Just as a typical new player learns the game starting with one-base cheese, into 2-base cheese, into 3-base ball of death, into proper, high skill play... We've watched the pro scene do the same thing. Go back and watch the VODs of the first GSL. Most games were won based on the success or failure of a one-base all-in. Over time, that turned into 2-base plays, and so on. For a few months we were watching the death-ball plays from the pros, and now they're learning how to play in a way that defeats the ball of death.
It's how most strategy games develop in their play, and if it weren't for HOTS and LotV coming out so soon and ruining the development of WoL, we'd begin to see some amazing things out of it by the time it's 10 years old too, just like we did in BW. As it stands, we would have to wait for LotV, and lets be honest with ourselves here, we KNOW that they'll release a new version before that game's fully developed too. The main point that I want to make here is that the common argument that SC2 takes "less" skill to succeed in than BW is flawed. Our players are just as capable of carrying out multiple actions per minute in SC2 as they were in BW, but since it's a different game, with different mechanics, our players are still working out how best to carry out the actions they're capable of to reward their skill.
Your point on micro being "limited" holds a touch of fallacy to it too. To reference Day9's 'baseball vs frisbee' argument. I would put it out there that BW handed you a defective frisbee, one that wobbles in the air no matter how you throw it, but with persistence, you can figure out how to make it do what you want, more or less. Unfortunately, some things you can do with a brand new frisbee are absolutely impossible to do with your broken frisbee, but given how difficult it is to use the broken frisbee, you can dominate just by learning how to make the broken frisbee work in the standard way a brand new frisbee will.
In SC2, we've been handed a brand new frisbee. It's MUCH easier to use than the broken frisbee, so all the things that used to impress us with the broken frisbee are par-for-the-course. Now, there are LOTS of things that were IMPOSSIBLE with the broken frisbee, that we can eventually learn to do with our brand new frisbee, but we're so boxed in with our old thought patterns and habits that we're happy to play the game the way we did with the broken frisbee, and haven't yet explored all the cool new things that are now possible with our brand new frisbee. With time, someone REALLY good is going to come out and show us how to use the new frisbee properly, but for now, we're happy playing as if we're using the broken frisbee, because it's easy and comfortable for us.
Having said all that, it's absolutely possible that I'm dead wrong in my assessment of where this game should end up. But I'm also aware that only time will tell, and if by the end of next year, we aren't seeing new and innovative play that continues to separate the best from the also-rans, I'm more than willing to admit that I was wrong the whole time. But so far the argument that "give it time, the game will reward skill and get better" has been proved ACCURATE. I don't believe that you can show me that the overall play of our best players in 2010 is the same, or worse than the overall play of our best players in 2011. The skill is increasing in this game, and we're being rewarded with exciting, epic matches as it does. More exciting, and more epic than anything 2010 gave us, and I'm confident that the same will happen as the game progresses through 2012.
I think you forget that most of the 1 base allins were dealt with not by improvements on the side of players, but balance patches removing the viability of those strategies, and by maps getting better. Players were trying to play all sorts of macro and technical playstyles since day 1. It's only after the introduction of better, macro-oriented maps, and the removal of some broken allins through nerfs, that the game has manifested itself into its modern form.
You're pretending that heavy multitask and harassment based play is representative of a different skillset than is seen in BW. That's just bogus. BW had plenty of heavy harass, multitask based play, and still does. There's MANY ways to gain the advantage in BW, not just those we see in SC2. If anything, BW encapsulates a far larger array of applicable skills than SC2 does. This is what the whole OP was about - that SC2 has actually manage to cut off huge areas of interaction between players, and as such we're left with fewer ways that players can outplay each other, which makes for a much less dynamic game.
Every single thing you can do in SC2 you could do in BW. It's just that in BW, doing these things has far more of an opportunity cost, and if you didn't rely on great multitask and multi-pronged harassment, you could excel in other ways, like better macro, great timing attacks, excellent force control, and solid pushes. SC2 has nullified or diminished the importance of many of these skills.
I repeat, it is NOT that SC2 has added anything new to the table. It has ONLY removed avenues that were once open.
Every single thing you can do in SC2 you could do in BW. It's just that in BW, doing these things has far more of an opportunity cost, and if you didn't rely on great multitask and multi-pronged harassment, you could excel in other ways, like better macro, great timing attacks, excellent force control, and solid pushes. SC2 has nullified or diminished the importance of many of these skills.
???
You don't see people beating other players through better macro, timing attacks, force control, and solid pushes?
I just see absolutely no evidence for such claims.
On January 15 2012 06:42 Falling wrote: 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 3 shots for a zealot and 2 for a dragoon.
On January 14 2012 23:51 EternaLLegacy wrote: This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited.
I'm of the opinion that the transition into a more multi-task oriented game is a result of the standardizing of safe, macro build orders removing much of the early-game volatility from the scene (though obviously, not all of it). I'd also like to make the point that just because army vs army battles reward less micro doesn't make the game any less demanding, or challenging than BW. The game simply rewards different skills more heavily than the corresponding skill set in BW. So where micro was heavily rewarded in battle in BW, now multitasking during a battle is heavily rewarded (also, I'm not convinced that we aren't going to see some insane micro coming out in our army vs army battles in the future, making the units easier to use SHOULD eventually result in the units being capable of achieving MORE than they could in BW, where you had to fight with the AI just to make the unit do the basic action you wanted done).
Just as a typical new player learns the game starting with one-base cheese, into 2-base cheese, into 3-base ball of death, into proper, high skill play... We've watched the pro scene do the same thing. Go back and watch the VODs of the first GSL. Most games were won based on the success or failure of a one-base all-in. Over time, that turned into 2-base plays, and so on. For a few months we were watching the death-ball plays from the pros, and now they're learning how to play in a way that defeats the ball of death.
It's how most strategy games develop in their play, and if it weren't for HOTS and LotV coming out so soon and ruining the development of WoL, we'd begin to see some amazing things out of it by the time it's 10 years old too, just like we did in BW. As it stands, we would have to wait for LotV, and lets be honest with ourselves here, we KNOW that they'll release a new version before that game's fully developed too. The main point that I want to make here is that the common argument that SC2 takes "less" skill to succeed in than BW is flawed. Our players are just as capable of carrying out multiple actions per minute in SC2 as they were in BW, but since it's a different game, with different mechanics, our players are still working out how best to carry out the actions they're capable of to reward their skill.
Your point on micro being "limited" holds a touch of fallacy to it too. To reference Day9's 'baseball vs frisbee' argument. I would put it out there that BW handed you a defective frisbee, one that wobbles in the air no matter how you throw it, but with persistence, you can figure out how to make it do what you want, more or less. Unfortunately, some things you can do with a brand new frisbee are absolutely impossible to do with your broken frisbee, but given how difficult it is to use the broken frisbee, you can dominate just by learning how to make the broken frisbee work in the standard way a brand new frisbee will.
In SC2, we've been handed a brand new frisbee. It's MUCH easier to use than the broken frisbee, so all the things that used to impress us with the broken frisbee are par-for-the-course. Now, there are LOTS of things that were IMPOSSIBLE with the broken frisbee, that we can eventually learn to do with our brand new frisbee, but we're so boxed in with our old thought patterns and habits that we're happy to play the game the way we did with the broken frisbee, and haven't yet explored all the cool new things that are now possible with our brand new frisbee. With time, someone REALLY good is going to come out and show us how to use the new frisbee properly, but for now, we're happy playing as if we're using the broken frisbee, because it's easy and comfortable for us.
Having said all that, it's absolutely possible that I'm dead wrong in my assessment of where this game should end up. But I'm also aware that only time will tell, and if by the end of next year, we aren't seeing new and innovative play that continues to separate the best from the also-rans, I'm more than willing to admit that I was wrong the whole time. But so far the argument that "give it time, the game will reward skill and get better" has been proved ACCURATE. I don't believe that you can show me that the overall play of our best players in 2010 is the same, or worse than the overall play of our best players in 2011. The skill is increasing in this game, and we're being rewarded with exciting, epic matches as it does. More exciting, and more epic than anything 2010 gave us, and I'm confident that the same will happen as the game progresses through 2012.
I think you forget that most of the 1 base allins were dealt with not by improvements on the side of players, but balance patches removing the viability of those strategies, and by maps getting better. Players were trying to play all sorts of macro and technical playstyles since day 1. It's only after the introduction of better, macro-oriented maps, and the removal of some broken allins through nerfs, that the game has manifested itself into its modern form.
You're pretending that heavy multitask and harassment based play is representative of a different skillset than is seen in BW. That's just bogus. BW had plenty of heavy harass, multitask based play, and still does. There's MANY ways to gain the advantage in BW, not just those we see in SC2. If anything, BW encapsulates a far larger array of applicable skills than SC2 does. This is what the whole OP was about - that SC2 has actually manage to cut off huge areas of interaction between players, and as such we're left with fewer ways that players can outplay each other, which makes for a much less dynamic game.
Every single thing you can do in SC2 you could do in BW. It's just that in BW, doing these things has far more of an opportunity cost, and if you didn't rely on great multitask and multi-pronged harassment, you could excel in other ways, like better macro, great timing attacks, excellent force control, and solid pushes. SC2 has nullified or diminished the importance of many of these skills.
I repeat, it is NOT that SC2 has added anything new to the table. It has ONLY removed avenues that were once open.
well said.
its true MBS has opened up apm for multitasking as people have suggested. but such multitasking has always existed and was performed without a problem.
as for micro-ing ability, i love playing tvt and tvz because of the need for micro. splitting marines while charging at tanks, splitting marines against banelings, stutter stepping, focusing firing banegling groups with tanks, gaining vision with vikings, banshee vs marine, etc. same reason i dont enjoy tvp as much because its more about focus firing, emp, positioning and kiting.
as toss, the only thing i care or prioritse is force field/positioning vs emp and making sure my zealot is at the front, and if i have blink, blink micro.
zerg is about surrounding your opponent, sending in lings first before banes, baiting, controlling banes so it doesn't explode on useless stuff like thors, fungal the marines, harass with muta, NP the big units, etc.
i play all race and have had the chance see their micro potential. what i want is more of what terran has to do. i'm not saying its easier or harder, i'm saying the game needs to promote micro and that makes it fun and the player with better micro should be able to come up in battle, not who casts a spell first.
casting spell is not challenging, loading up or burrowing units against FF is not challenging, dropping banes on toss army is not challenging. things that i do enjoy: controlling marine against lurker and banes, dragoons vs vulture, splitting 4 hydras to kill 1 reaver, splitting your muta to kill corsair, picking out the irradated muta, consuming and putting down spell before defiler dies to irradate, blink micro.
the things people suggest as "micro" aren't micro at all imo("colossus need micro" -,.-). stutter stepping, moving your roach inside for maximum damage, moving colossus behind army, they're not impressive micro, they're just common sense stuff that needs to be done. what i want is more instinctive, reflex micros like dragoon vs mines, marine vs bane(as banes are coming, not pre-positioning), micro opportunities that sets apart the chobo, hasu, and gosu. (i personally love early pvp during stalker/zealot vs stalker/zealot because better micro will come up top)
and in that sense, forcefields and fungal ruins that. and the shredder that may get added, adds to this micro limiting equation.
I can't agree with most points. Micro-reducing units, or let's just call them what they are: Snares and roots are an interesting feature. They require your opponent to think. No, you can't harrass a terran with stalkers, if he has concussive shells. No, you can't just walk up a toss ramp. It requires though. You must think befor eyou act. Think your complain further: Every unit that is faster than another is automatically doing the same as those spells you discribed. About those micro-less units, you are wrong again. The micro part is positioning them right. Protecting them is micro. The same way as Vikings killing them is also positioning.
Things you get right is the power distribution of the units. Collossus is better than HT/carrier. Roach better than Hydra. Just straight better. That makes the game somewhat stale. But that's the only problem.
On January 15 2012 08:48 testthewest wrote: I can't agree with most points. Micro-reducing units, or let's just call them what they are: Snares and roots are an interesting feature. They require your opponent to think. No, you can't harrass a terran with stalkers, if he has concussive shells. No, you can't just walk up a toss ramp. It requires though. You must think befor eyou act. Think your complain further: Every unit that is faster than another is automatically doing the same as those spells you discribed. About those micro-less units, you are wrong again. The micro part is positioning them right. Protecting them is micro. The same way as Vikings killing them is also positioning.
Things you get right is the power distribution of the units. Collossus is better than HT/carrier. Roach better than Hydra. Just straight better. That makes the game somewhat stale. But that's the only problem.
So you want SC2 to be a volatile game where if you commit at the wrong time you will be punished by the death of your entire army and having the game lost? Everything could have been perfect to the build up of that one big battle and one tiny mistake, having all your HTs emped results in a loss of the battle -> loss of the game.
You dont seem to understand the point of the OP and some of the other posters are trying to say.
Nobody is arguing that one must think before you act. Nobody is arguing the fact that one must pre split and position their armies before the engagement. Lets look at it this way:
Pre battle micro and In fight micro. Pre battle micro could be characterised by army positioning, splitting and what not, trying to maximise ones army's effectiveness before committing. In fight micro is targeting firing, splitting, getting off your spells, retreating due to wrong engagement etc.
But the main point is that these micro limiting spells limit the infight micro. Think marines vs banelings. The constant splitting and micro for both the marines and banelings is phenomenal to watch (both pre battle and during the fight). But now an infestor turns all that action during the battle into nothing but boring outcome where the opposing player simply cant do anything with even a single mistake. You cant even split during the battle because the fungals are instantaneous and the opposing player has no idea when the spell will go off. IF it had a slow effect instead of a stunning one, this would turn the fights more interesting because you still CAN do something about it. Thats why I actually liked when the fungal was a projectile spell and this made the T player split his army during the fight.
Great thread, glad to see it's getting the attention it deserves.
As a gamer with no BW background ( am I even a gamer at all?) I really appreciate the points you've rose.
It's kinda obvious that there are units that were intended to be 'micro' (Fungal, FF, Storm, EMP, tanks, etc) and units that were just sorta slapped on to make the game different for... what reason exactly? Talking about banelings, colossus, marauders, etc.
With the poor implementation of AoE, and units that simply are a-move, it's kinda... bleak and not as deep as a SC game could or should be, imo.
So what would be appropriate fixes for forcefields? Obviously we don't want them to be useless, especially early on, because protoss HAS to have them to survive some pressure attacks and allins. One suggestion I remember from beta was giving them finite hp, but no target priority (and perhaps giving them high armor would be good too to make them stronger earlier rather than later). I personally like this idea a lot since it forces micro from the other player, but does not auto-win a fight for the casting player. I'm sure there are other options out there as well.
i think the problem with force fields is that they are more powerful than the raw mechanical skill required to use them
i think a much simpler fix than radically changing the functionality of forcefields, would be to cut both their energy costs and duration in half simulataneously
by adjusting force field in this way, not only is the ability more flexible in its use, but it also requires either your entire attention during its use, or, alternatively you are MC, and are one of half a dozen people with the multitasking capability of juggling force fields while warping units in
the shorter the duration of force field, the narrowing the timing window you can take focus off your army and safely macro up, which is quite a bit more important with protoss due to the warp-in mechanic requiring you to actually look at where you're building the unit
i agree with your sentinment that they overall a pretty good idea that just doesn't quite work right, but i think in theory it's a viable space controlling mechanism like dark swarm and tanks you can't hard counter were
In my opinion there shouldn't be root, snare or stun effects in a RTS without serious drawbacks. Also you shouldn't be able to manipulate terrain (forcefields) because it just amplifies favorable as well as unfavorable map design.
I also think stimpack is boring. There is no choice, you want you units stimmed, in every battle. I like auras like guardian shield a lot more. You have to keep your sentry with GS close to your units to achieve maximum effect and it creates a target your opponent wants focused down which forces micro.
One more thing: Units and spells should not be able to fulfill too many strong support features. Fungal is an example of one that does a little too much in my opinion. EMP, storm & neural parasite are much better designed that way - they have clear drawbacks or limits. One more example for a unit that feels like it fulfills too many roles is the medievac though I'm not sure if it actually is too strong. I only feel this way because it has too strong a synergy with the marine and the marauder which are super effective in small scale battles with stim and heal.
One last note: Blizzard say they try hard to have very different units for all 3 races though for some reason they decided to take the marine, specialize it and call it the marauder. I think it should be more different to the marine than it is.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, I was just looking through the Cool and unsual Starcraft thread and this game demonstrates so much of the that individual control that we want to see more of.
Baby vs Effort- wraith control GOMTV Classic Season 3 Action get's going at the 5min mark if you're really in a hurry, but it's better to have the full context.
But don't go away! This is casted by none other than Tasteless himself. This is such an action packed game with individual control, positional battles, drops, air to air battles. It has it all. Now mind you, heavy wraith use is unusual, but the point is a lot of these older units contain the potentional for this highly specific control. Even if every unit isn't used every time.
Now imagine FG exists in it's current smart-casting form during this game. Would it add or subtract the micro if the wraiths could be completely frozen in place and damaged? Micro, micro, micro. FG!. Blam. Can't micro.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
Stasis lockdown were not used as spells to restrict micro.
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).
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 16:16 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.
Hey, thanks for replying. See a couple comments below:
On January 15 2012 19:55 bokeevboke wrote: 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.
Actually I made the opposite point. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
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.
I do understand the OP's point, but wanting to shift battles one style or the other doesn't work. Players will adapt to the approach that reaps the most benefits. In that context, if and when force fields become so big of an advantage for the Protoss player, I'm sure Blizzard will notice. I don't think it's happened so far.
Sorry, but I think you're blind fanboy or you have completely different understanding of RTS.
I'm not defending Blizzard at all. I just disagree with the OP's analysis on a few points. That's all.
On January 15 2012 21:10 MurdeR wrote: 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.
Of course BW was really lucky. It was never intended to be balanced for people who make a living of it. It was meant to be "Orcs in Space" until people really complained a ton about it being a completly uncreative game. It was meant to be a Warhammer game and might as well have died in that nieche if it had gotten the license. It had absolutly no support from blizzard at times when it looked as if the game was broken (ZvP before Bisu...) It was released at a time in which South Korea wa heavily investing into internet for everyone - who knows what would have happened if it had been released 2years later and some AoE or CnC had become the trend game of this time. We might be playing CnC "The only sequel" now and laugh about what silly principles of non-real-hardcounters Starcraft 7 was using and how it takes ages to play a game of SC7, while you get really actionpacked 5-10mins in CnC. It has absolutly huge design flaws: bio vs Protoss or bio vs Terran anyone?
BUT... The pathing and the unit selection (those two go hand in hand. The more units you can select, the more resources a PC needs to calculate pathing for a selection of units) turned out to be so dominating aspects of this game, that the balance issues it might have, just never really mattered, once the most necessary changes had been made. (early patches, BW) BUT... It did get rebalanced, because blizzard was already a big player in the business and couldn't afford bad reputation after War2. BUT... It didn't get the license and therefore a lot of non-Warhammer players picked up the game and the story. BUT... It turned out alright. BUT... It was released at this time and due to domination in Korea, a good foreign scene could develope. And even if had been released at a different time, it might still have gotten really big! BUT... It doesn't matter. Every game has it's designflaws and has more/less usable units. Even way more established games like chess.
It turned out to be one of the best/most developed e-sports game in the world.
And well, you don't have to miss it... It exists. Just glad that blizzard didn't go the CnC way (at least some of the CnC games): "Hey, here is the same game with better graphics and better balancing. Please make it so that this will become as successful as StarCraft:Broodwar. No it didn't? Let's make another part? This didn't as well? Well then another part..." (Hopefully Generals 2 will go a better way. BioWare as developer sounds really promising. What they said about how they approach the developement - competetive, classic RTS, unique factions - sounds a lot like starcraft 1&2, so really promising. The release date - not in the near future - sounds promising.)
@eternal legacy when can we get part 3 ? So far I am enjoying your articles , it had really in depth examination of the units and the pro's and con's of each unit, the issue of micro limitation , I had like to hear your opinion about blizzard re-introducing units like Shredder having spider mine like quality as seen in broodwar although in comparison bw spider mine is much more unforgiving as the spider mine can be used by the opponent to drag it into your units and the usage of it to gain map control .
Also the re introduction of a defiler like unit (viper) which has the characteristic of a tyranid unit in WH40k and corsair d web abilities . A (swarm host )lurker type unit which has also share some characteristic of the unit in bw however pale in comparison to the damage it can be done in broodwar .
Dropping a few units of lurker behind a opponent mineral line , you can see their worker line blow up in to bits in a mere few seconds . The damage is done immediately however the reincarnation of that kind of lurker unit , it's minions takes too long to travel to the target do any sort of heavy damage . Maybe they can make the minions burrow under the ground before popping up to an unexpected unit and than unleash it's heavy payload ?
I can finally say if they actually implement this idea will make it worthy to be as of the same standing of the lurker's in broodwar . Imagine putting a few of this babies on a ramp and than unsuspecting MnM units are about to push only to find out that it's minion are already under the feet of the units waiting to be exploded at your command . Well it seems this role has been taken by baneling 2.0 which is another bummer ......
That would have make it a much better fighting unit as lurkers do immediate damage with their spine attack while , lurker 2.0 seems really weak compared to the original . Also I find it funny that the protoss are getting quite gimmicky units compared to the two other races . Oracles to make a copy of the unit it is targeted to do so and some sort of a mini arbiter with stasis like abilities however it can only halt the mineral line of the opponent and make some production buildings stop manufacturing units .
The warhound which is in essence a Goliath but remodelled in to looking different although having the same anti air abilities as the one in broodwar . Also the battle hellion to deal with zealots .. Will this changes make sc2 better ?
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW. Don't immediately look for bad things it would do, think of how it would interact with the other units.
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
Well obviously. That's my point. You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
I mean if they replaced FG with Dark Swarm? I think any zerg player would take that. It wouldn't even be fair.
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
Well obviously. That's my point. You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
I mean if they replaced FG with Dark Swarm? I think any zerg player would take that. It wouldn't even be fair.
One sided eh ? In a Late game TvZ you don't want to continue making pure marine and medics and tanks versus Hive tech's unit after all a full grown hive tech units consist of Ultra's ,lings and defilers . Which in the majority comprises of pure ground units .
Current late game ZvT requires the terran player to switch to mech in which we use vultures, goliath and Tanks to counter zerg's hive tech units . Dark swarms do not work when spider mines are underneath it . In fact dark swarms actually do nothing , actually if the terran players has lot of room to work , and is not desperate to kill you at that timing .
In fact , it's function as a mere deterrence to stop a push from destroying expo is quite necessary for the zergs . However having spider mines counter's the zerg plays of dark swarm or huge amount of siege tank's being in siege mode kills everything underneath a dark swarm of course upgraded siege tank with +3 weapon upgrades . I don't see dark swarm a problem at all . High templars psi storm just kills everything under a dark swarm , lurkers , zerglings and hydra .
You say you can't micro huh when dark swarms are up ? well I can still do fancy micro , if there is a lot of room to play with , everytime the zerg players puts a dark swarm , I will keep moving backwards and find an opening to manoeuvre and kills his units one by one and snipe the important tech building like spawning pool , defiler mount and etc .
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.)
Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said.
Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to:
The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious.
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.
So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time.
However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both.
Both macro and micro are very important in BW, and you can totally crush someone if you are very good in either one. But BW is more of a macro than micro game when contrasting with WC3, which is very very heavily focus on intense microing. Macro gets even harder since there isn't MBS and people, even I can talk very long about important fundamentals to macroing effeciently, though much of those information is irrelavant with MBS and auto-mining.
Maybe you see a lot of BW micro because you don't play much of it to recognise it or spot it, because after all when you watch VODs without much knowledge you only see the micro.
And btw my music instruments analogy was agreeing with you. Some skills, and knowledge in music and instruments are transferable and gives a huge advantage in learning a new one, but a lot of basic things have to be practiced from scratch.
Well, I say broodwar was being developed from the micro side, because when the game wasn't figuered very well, because people started playing with 1base stuff (very little macro needed, a lot of micro needed). Eventually it ended up with both parts being developed heavily. I think in Starcraft 2 it was kind of different (obviously 1base rushes and 2base rushes had to be figuered out). The mindset is rather that you should try to get really good at macro first, before you even try to micro a lot.
Putting this in the day9 contest of "8times more" of units in SC1 and "1.5times more" of units in SC2: If you fight a kind of equally skilled opponent, you will have and 8:8 or 8: 7 times relation between your units in SC1 and an 1.5:1.5 or 1.5:1.4 relation in SC2. So it just makes more sense to give micro a bigger priority to learn first in SC1 and macro a bigger priority to learn first in SC1. That's why I think once the macro is really starting to settle, the micro parts will get a lot more focus (because 2:1.5 will obviously make a HUGE differnce with kind of equal, good macro!)
The mindset is rather that you should try to get really good at macro first, before you even try to micro a lot was preached in the BW forums too when I was there around 08-09, forgot when, and subsequently by Day9 when he started his BW podcasts and early BW Dalies.
This get's back to my initial point. Macro is emphasised because of the completely different mentality, skill and knowledge of the players in the first year of SC2. SC2 developed at a super fast pace compared to SC1 during their early year(s).
Moreover there isn't, comparatively much to micro in SC2 with it's balls and unlimited unit selection. There's less emphasis on positioning and microing to engage with a proper formation. Think SC1 zealot goon vs tank lines and vultures or marines vs lurkers. 2 examples of how the same amount of units can totally crush either side if one side micros well or micros badly.
But this partly related to reason of different unit types/design as stated in the OP.
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
Well obviously. That's my point. You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
I mean if they replaced FG with Dark Swarm? I think any zerg player would take that. It wouldn't even be fair.
One sided eh ? In a Late game TvZ you don't want to continue making pure marine and medics and tanks versus Hive tech's unit after all a full grown hive tech units consist of Ultra's ,lings and defilers . Which in the majority comprises of pure ground units .
Current late game ZvT requires the terran player to switch to mech in which we use vultures, goliath and Tanks to counter zerg's hive tech units . Dark swarms do not work when spider mines are underneath it . In fact dark swarms actually do nothing , actually if the terran players has lot of room to work , and is not desperate to kill you at that timing .
In fact , it's function as a mere deterrence to stop a push from destroying expo is quite necessary for the zergs . However having spider mines counter's the zerg plays of dark swarm or huge amount of siege tank's being in siege mode kills everything underneath a dark swarm of course upgraded siege tank with +3 weapon upgrades . I don't see dark swarm a problem at all . High templars psi storm just kills everything under a dark swarm , lurkers , zerglings and hydra .
You say you can't micro huh when dark swarms are up ? well I can still do fancy micro , if there is a lot of room to play with , everytime the zerg players puts a dark swarm , I will keep moving backwards and find an opening to manoeuvre and kills his units one by one and snipe the important tech building like spawning pool , defiler mount and etc .
It's one-sided in that it forces a simple response from Terran. Not that there aren't things you can do against it. That wasn't what EternalLegacy meant by one-sided, as far as I could tell.
Okay, well in the lategame, I would probably just say that that is akin to using Ultralisks to break the forcefields. There are plenty of tools against forcefields that you can use in the lategame. So eh.
"Keep moving backwards and find an opening" is exactly the way forcefields are basically working nowadays (except in a zerg way where you try to surround). In fact, the way you're fighting me actually shows a lot of how an ability that looks like total bullshit in most games can be dealt with in a variety of ways and makes the game more interesting.
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.
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.
....What?
A) Tanks can 1 shot whole clusters of blings and lings at a time. B) Seiged tanks are incredibily good against nonmicroed marines and very good against highly microed marines, it's not until you get air superiority to start marine bombing right in the middle of the tank line that marines become able just roll over supported tanks.
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
Well obviously. That's my point. You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
I mean if they replaced FG with Dark Swarm? I think any zerg player would take that. It wouldn't even be fair.
One sided eh ? In a Late game TvZ you don't want to continue making pure marine and medics and tanks versus Hive tech's unit after all a full grown hive tech units consist of Ultra's ,lings and defilers . Which in the majority comprises of pure ground units .
Current late game ZvT requires the terran player to switch to mech in which we use vultures, goliath and Tanks to counter zerg's hive tech units . Dark swarms do not work when spider mines are underneath it . In fact dark swarms actually do nothing , actually if the terran players has lot of room to work , and is not desperate to kill you at that timing .
In fact , it's function as a mere deterrence to stop a push from destroying expo is quite necessary for the zergs . However having spider mines counter's the zerg plays of dark swarm or huge amount of siege tank's being in siege mode kills everything underneath a dark swarm of course upgraded siege tank with +3 weapon upgrades . I don't see dark swarm a problem at all . High templars psi storm just kills everything under a dark swarm , lurkers , zerglings and hydra .
You say you can't micro huh when dark swarms are up ? well I can still do fancy micro , if there is a lot of room to play with , everytime the zerg players puts a dark swarm , I will keep moving backwards and find an opening to manoeuvre and kills his units one by one and snipe the important tech building like spawning pool , defiler mount and etc .
It's one-sided in that it forces a simple response from Terran. Not that there aren't things you can do against it. That wasn't what EternalLegacy meant by one-sided, as far as I could tell.
Okay, well in the lategame, I would probably just say that that is akin to using Ultralisks to break the forcefields. There are plenty of tools against forcefields that you can use in the lategame. So eh.
"Keep moving backwards and find an opening" is exactly the way forcefields are basically working nowadays (except in a zerg way where you try to surround). In fact, the way you're fighting me actually shows a lot of how an ability that looks like total bullshit in most games can be dealt with in a variety of ways and makes the game more interesting.
I don't see a problem at all , you ask me if dark swarms actually negate micro ? I say nope and gave you the example . forcefields are meh , try getting plague by defilers and see your units rip to shreds by cracklings .
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
Well obviously. That's my point. You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
I mean if they replaced FG with Dark Swarm? I think any zerg player would take that. It wouldn't even be fair.
What?
Once a FF goes down you can't do anything, you cannot REACT to an FF. Only half the army backs off, the rest just dies spazzing out. If a Dark Swarm goes down you can run your whole army out of it.
Backing the hell up is fancy micro, it looks amazing to see Terran stutter stepping 3 ctrl groups of M&M out of constant swarms going down over and over. FF is just, run away because half my army is dead I don't have enough units to engage.
Firebats, Siege Tanks, Spidermines, Spells still work in a dark swarm as well. If you only have lings, a darkswarm does jack shit because of firebats. Using swarm against mech is also a terrible idea.
It is almost never a terrible idea to use Forcefield.
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.
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.
....What?
A) Tanks can 1 shot whole clusters of blings and lings at a time. B) Seiged tanks are incredibily good against nonmicroed marines and very good against highly microed marines, it's not until you get air superiority to start marine bombing right in the middle of the tank line that marines become able just roll over supported tanks.
1. Have you ever seen a bad forcefield in a pro-game? because bad stasis' happen a lot, about 30% of the time. This is because it is very risky to sneak the arbiter behind the Terran army so often players just go for the front, the safer option.
2. Tanks are good against the units it doesn't need to be good against. The tank in SC2 makes no sense what-so-ever. Why would you need tanks to kill lings and banelings wtf? I'd much rather kill stalkers, colossi, hydras, etc with them. Where are my medics and firebats?
On January 16 2012 01:21 DoubleReed wrote: You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
so you have a choice. you can react. with forcefield you cannot.
Dark Swarm: cast it--> possibility of raping the enemy army opponent retreats --> neutered effect of darkswarm, defiler has to replenish energy
Force Field: cast it --> certainty of killing all the trapped units opponent cannot react at all
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW.
The only thing that get's caught badly under a dark swarm and dies are unsieged unit's . Unit's like marine and medic can just pull out of a dark swarm easily with minimal losses which is okay to the terran . Not unsieging your 10 tanks under a dark swarm is like asking them to sacrifice themselves for the greater good . Losing tanks in a ZvT is a big no no unless you have a lot of minerals and gas in the bank.
Well obviously. That's my point. You have to back the hell up, or you die. You can't do any fancy micro or anything. You back up, or you die. It's totally one-sided.
I mean if they replaced FG with Dark Swarm? I think any zerg player would take that. It wouldn't even be fair.
Quite the opposite. Dark swarm forces you to micro your units by pulling out and minimize the effect dark swarm as much as possible. Forcefield can't be microed against. You either stay and fight with a giant wall between your army or you back up and leave them for dead.
I agree with all of this so much. Especially when bringing more spellcasters into the game will not help. A good comparison is company of heroes. Every unit in that game required some sort of micro to be successful. The more you can micro the more you can get out of it. Not all unit sin sc2 is like this
I would like to see an article on what SC2 did right.
These are articles are to discuss what we can learn from the past to improve SC2. But another method would be focus on what SC2 did well. Since this thread focuses a lot on what was better in in other RTS games (namely BW) than in SC2, we can turn that around and ask what SC2 did better than other RTS games.
On January 16 2012 10:23 Foxx1 wrote: I agree with all of this so much. Especially when bringing more spellcasters into the game will not help. A good comparison is company of heroes. Every unit in that game required some sort of micro to be successful. The more you can micro the more you can get out of it. Not all unit sin sc2 is like this
The infantry also had good pathing while not running in a ball. Could you imagine how bad CoH would be if everything moved in one clumped ball?
Blizzard are in denial about their pathing, it really really sucks, it is so badly designed, yet they defend it as if its the best thing since sliced bread. There are much better pathing algorithms out there.
On January 16 2012 10:36 lbmaian wrote: I would like to see an article on what SC2 did right.
These are articles are to discuss what we can learn from the past to improve SC2. But another method would be focus on what SC2 did well. Since this thread focuses a lot on what was better in in other RTS games (namely BW) than in SC2, we can turn that around and ask what SC2 did better than other RTS games.
There was actually an article which did just that, but I disagree with a lot of the points. One of the main focuses was mobility, medivacs and nydus mainly.
Medics provide so much more skill depth than medivacs, dropship play was actually cool because it required more than half a brain to do a drop. There is a VOD of Nada with a tiny group of M&M&F killing tonnes of lurkers and lings and buildings, I calculated it to the equivalent of something like 50 banelings, 30 lings, a hatchery, and evo chamber.
Nyduses are used more in BW, simply because to allow them to build off creep meant getting hit with the biggest nerf bat of all time. Nyduses were actually really really useful in BW, and allowed Zerg to build expos at any corner of the map and actually defend them.
I think Creep Spread was the only good advancement in SC2, everything else is just a meer shadow of the BW version.
Oh there's more than that. The interaction between banelings and marines is pretty cool. Both players are microing against each other rather than one side suddenly preventing movement. And banelings as an entire concept is pretty cool as well. I don't agree that banelings make lurkers redundant, but I like them as units.
I don't particularly like Phoenixes compared to Corsairs, but that lift ability is pretty cool.
The problem with thinking about a lot of these units is there are some fundamental issues I have which effects them all. Pathing and grouping for one, and the slight latency or lack of responsiveness for another.
Linking nydus worms is a vast improvement from their BW counterpart although they seem to get used about as much these days.
I like having ghosts as a more useable tech although nuclear bombs are not nearly as impressive- what does it take 3-4 to take out a command centre?
There's more or at least in comparison to any modern RTS I can think of. SupCom2 is the game I love to hate as it got almost everything wrong. And in comparison to that, SC2 is genius.
On January 16 2012 11:11 Falling wrote: Oh there's more than that. The interaction between banelings and marines is pretty cool. Both players are microing against each other rather than one side suddenly preventing movement. And banelings as an entire concept is pretty cool as well. I don't agree that banelings make lurkers redundant, but I like them as units.
I don't particularly like Phoenixes compared to Corsairs, but that lift ability is pretty cool.
The problem with thinking about a lot of these units is there are some fundamental issues I have which effects them all. Pathing and grouping for one, and the slight latency or lack of responsiveness for another.
Linking nydus worms is a vast improvement from their BW counterpart although they seem to get used about as much these days.
I like having ghosts as a more useable tech although nuclear bombs are not nearly as impressive- what does it take 3-4 to take out a command centre?
There's more.
I edited my post above to talk about Nydus Worms. ^^ They are in-fact much more useful in BW, they are a core building with late game Z, you see them 100% of the time as long as it gets to late game.
Nuke is an improvement somewhat I must admit, but they need to increase the damage by at least 3 times and probably the cost as well to compensate. The reason nuke was not used in BW was the odd tech requirement, against P you never made barracks units, Z had overlords with detection, T you needed battlecruisers (competing addon).
Marines vs Banelings is just a mere shadow of BWs version of Marines vs Lurkers. BW also had the same sorts interactions but with almost every unit. Scourge vs Muta-Wraith-Corsair / Swarm vs Bio. Except picking of scourge at your six, requires a lot of skill compared to splitting.
The other thing about splitting is some marines will almost always die, just less of them or more banelings are lost, scourge encounters can leave either side completely destroy or completely unphased, so the dynamic is much greater.
Well that's true. It's just in BW it always was annoying that you had to build entirely different nydus networks rather than having them all connected. But it's true they are pretty crucial for Zerg's late game defence.
And yeah if you compare Marines vs Lurkers and Marines vs Banelings there's not much of a comparison. But it is one of the better highlights from SC2.
BW also had the same sorts interactions but with almost every unit. Scourge vs Muta-Wraith-Corsair / Swarm vs Bio.
This is very true and one of the more disappointing things about SC2. Only a handful of units do what almost every unit could in BW. And even if the unit isn't used very much (wraiths), when you pulled it out, you could suddenly demonstrate some awe inspiring micro control like that Baby vs Effort game I posted earlier.
sluggaslamoo, I think lots of what you're talking about depends on the BW mechanics. Put those BW units in SC2 with SC2 mechanics and pathing, and it would probably be a wash. You already see a similar type of micro against lurkers in SC2, except it's marines vs. tanks, and I find both anti-baneling and anti-tank splitting to be equally interesting. The only advantage the lurker has at that point is surprise (stop lurkers?). As a spectator, I feel that banelings are superior to lurkers - it just fits the swarm feel of the zerg so well. Of course, banelings pale in comparison to lurkers when it comes to zone control.
As for nydus worm, it has less to do with the building itself and more with the rest of the game. The SC2 nydus IS improved (I think - I don't remember the rate at which units can exit the nydus in BW). It's just that the rest of SC2 conspires against distant bases for zerg.
Basically, you have to put everything in the context of SC2 mechanics. Assuming that they won't change, what unit substitutions/additions from BW would help SC2.
On January 16 2012 11:55 lbmaian wrote: sluggaslamoo, I think lots of what you're talking about depends on the BW mechanics. Put those BW units in SC2 with SC2 mechanics and pathing, and it would probably be a wash. You already see a similar type of micro against lurkers in SC2, except it's marines vs. tanks, and I find both anti-baneling and anti-tank splitting to be equally interesting. The only advantage the lurker has at that point is surprise (stop lurkers?). As a spectator, I feel that banelings are superior to lurkers - it just fits the swarm feel of the zerg so well. Of course, banelings pale in comparison to lurkers when it comes to zone control.
As for nydus worm, it has less to do with the building itself and more with the rest of the game. The SC2 nydus IS improved (I think - I don't remember the rate at which units can exit the nydus in BW). It's just that the rest of SC2 conspires against distant bases for zerg.
Basically, you have to put everything in the context of SC2 mechanics. Assuming that they won't change, what unit substitutions/additions from BW would help SC2.
On January 16 2012 11:55 lbmaian wrote: sluggaslamoo, I think lots of what you're talking about depends on the BW mechanics. Put those BW units in SC2 with SC2 mechanics and pathing, and it would probably be a wash. You already see a similar type of micro against lurkers in SC2, except it's marines vs. tanks, and I find both anti-baneling and anti-tank splitting to be equally interesting. The only advantage the lurker has at that point is surprise (stop lurkers?). As a spectator, I feel that banelings are superior to lurkers - it just fits the swarm feel of the zerg so well. Of course, banelings pale in comparison to lurkers when it comes to zone control.
As for nydus worm, it has less to do with the building itself and more with the rest of the game. The SC2 nydus IS improved (I think - I don't remember the rate at which units can exit the nydus in BW). It's just that the rest of SC2 conspires against distant bases for zerg.
Basically, you have to put everything in the context of SC2 mechanics. Assuming that they won't change, what unit substitutions/additions from BW would help SC2.
Nydus Worm is much cheaper and much faster in BW.
As for banelings vs lurkers, I'm not gonna argue anymore. You simply have to see to believe.
I disagree with you on the no zone control. Forcefield fits that role exactly. PDD gives you zone control as well. And in the expansion we will see any lacking in this field be helped out by shredder, viper, etc. Maybe PDD needs to be stronger somehow, because it's sort of linear right now. You put it down, it absorbs a certain amount of hits, then needs to recharge slowly.
On January 16 2012 11:55 lbmaian wrote: sluggaslamoo, I think lots of what you're talking about depends on the BW mechanics. Put those BW units in SC2 with SC2 mechanics and pathing, and it would probably be a wash. You already see a similar type of micro against lurkers in SC2, except it's marines vs. tanks, and I find both anti-baneling and anti-tank splitting to be equally interesting. The only advantage the lurker has at that point is surprise (stop lurkers?). As a spectator, I feel that banelings are superior to lurkers - it just fits the swarm feel of the zerg so well. Of course, banelings pale in comparison to lurkers when it comes to zone control.
As for nydus worm, it has less to do with the building itself and more with the rest of the game. The SC2 nydus IS improved (I think - I don't remember the rate at which units can exit the nydus in BW). It's just that the rest of SC2 conspires against distant bases for zerg.
Basically, you have to put everything in the context of SC2 mechanics. Assuming that they won't change, what unit substitutions/additions from BW would help SC2.
Nydus Worm is much cheaper and much faster in BW.
As for banelings vs lurkers, I'm not gonna argue anymore. You simply have to see to believe.
Agreed, it's just a opinion. And yes I do watch BW. There's enough of these "you just can't understand" shotgun posts - let's avoid them, m'kay?
On January 16 2012 13:00 Roe wrote: I disagree with you on the no zone control. Forcefield fits that role exactly. PDD gives you zone control as well. And in the expansion we will see any lacking in this field be helped out by shredder, viper, etc. Maybe PDD needs to be stronger somehow, because it's sort of linear right now. You put it down, it absorbs a certain amount of hits, then needs to recharge slowly.
Its not really zone control if its only available for a very short time.
I can literally fortify a position forever with enough tanks/mines/turrets/depots. It does require a big investment though and a lot of precious time and effort, its like building a castle.
PDD/Forcefield is a relatively small investment but the scale at which you can control a zone is also much less.
I think the only thing that I disagree with in this post is that siege tanks are a ''glass cannon'' of sorts. Coming from a zerg perspective I really don't think tanks are that fragile Maybe they aren't as beefy as in BW but almost all the SC2 maps feature a large amount of ramps and ledges where you can place some tanks on the high ground and some on the low ground to make it near impossible to deal with it at some stages in the game, then again this isn't directly related to the unit itself but to the positioning of the unit.
On January 16 2012 13:22 Fallians wrote: I think the only thing that I disagree with in this post is that siege tanks are a ''glass cannon'' of sorts. Coming from a zerg perspective I really don't think tanks are that fragile Maybe they aren't as beefy as in BW but almost all the SC2 maps feature a large amount of ramps and ledges where you can place some tanks on the high ground and some on the low ground to make it near impossible to deal with it at some stages in the game, then again this isn't directly related to the unit itself but to the positioning of the unit.
That's just a problem with map design. BW maps are very cautious to avoid abusable ledges these days because of how game-breaking it can be. I'll get to this in detail in part 4, whenever I get around to writing that.
that was a pretty interesting read... I honestly don't really disagree with anything... (i mean we all knew Collosus/Sentries OP )... The thing i would like most is zone control tbh
On January 16 2012 10:36 lbmaian wrote: I would like to see an article on what SC2 did right.
These are articles are to discuss what we can learn from the past to improve SC2. But another method would be focus on what SC2 did well. Since this thread focuses a lot on what was better in in other RTS games (namely BW) than in SC2, we can turn that around and ask what SC2 did better than other RTS games.
I'm currently working on such a thing, but I'm not sure if I'm gonna publish it. After all I'm not a native english speaker and know that I don't express myself very well sometimes
But I just want to say, that in this article I'm focusing a lot on a concept I'm calling "Vanillia SC2", which is just broodwar in an SC2 enviroment (pathing, AI...). Because I think articles like this one, which compare broodwar abilities with SC2 abilities just don't make any sense to begin with, as in broodwar things like clumping didn't exist on such a level as in SC2. This very article for example just takes too many steps at once. Like in Broodwar, noone would have given a damn about a low damage, low radius ability like fungal growth and forcefields without smartcast might have just been a niche ability to hold a ramp, but probably not seen any combat use. Or if it had, map layouts might have been completly different. Also it's not really fruitful, to say how much micro has been done with a dragoon in BW, when it would have been a pure 1a unit within the SC2 enviroment.
On January 16 2012 13:00 Roe wrote: I disagree with you on the no zone control. Forcefield fits that role exactly. PDD gives you zone control as well. And in the expansion we will see any lacking in this field be helped out by shredder, viper, etc. Maybe PDD needs to be stronger somehow, because it's sort of linear right now. You put it down, it absorbs a certain amount of hits, then needs to recharge slowly.
Its not really zone control if its only available for a very short time.
I can literally fortify a position forever with enough tanks/mines/turrets/depots. It does require a big investment though and a lot of precious time and effort, its like building a castle.
PDD/Forcefield is a relatively small investment but the scale at which you can control a zone is also much less.
thats why Flash has his scary winrate, because he has awesome castles, i remember how Calm was trying to break it but couldnt
Also Nyduses in BW are not equal to nyduses in SC2, 1 is meant to be defensive (on creep only and instant deployment) second mostly aggresive (it has alarm and troop deployment delay, and quite significant). Also Nydus in sc2 is always a big investment its 150/300 for only 1 exit(building + exit). And frankly zerg units in sc2 dont need instant transport for defence if you have proper spotting, spending 100 gas to deflect 1 or 2 drops when you can send zerglings/mutas ?
I cant see nydus in sc2 pulling out the same or even comparable defense as in sc1, many times ive seen player saving his hatch in last ditch effort because he was able to get 20 zerglings 2 defilers and 5 lurkers in 2 sec. Lack of swarm and lurkers and high ground also cheapens defenders advantage. defilers and lurkers are slow and precious(so their numbers are lower than say zerglings) so nydus is very very usefull to transport those units, you can have for example 3 lurkers and you can move them accross your 3 bases because you have 2 nydus networks. Thats just example, but infestor wouldnt work like that(maybe if u got lucky fungal), none zerg unit in sc2 would work like that.
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.
It is you that needs to start looking at the big picture here, rather than letting your narrow mindedness and Brood War bias dictate everything that you say. Your entire analysis is full of it actually in that you should change your title to "Comparing Brood War to Starcraft 2" so people get a better idea of what they are actually reading.
On January 15 2012 13:09 EternaLLegacy wrote: So your counterexamples are:
Firstly I would like to say that my examples were simply situations (by no means an exaustive list) in which your statement fails to hold up, and it does, so my original argument is correct on this merit alone and you have failed to justify your statement in any way shape or form.
A case where Protoss screws up,
Here your narrow mindedness shows in that you assume that a gap in the Forcefields or Forcefields that leave room for kiting must mean that Protoss has screwed up. It actually doesn't, the amount of Forcefields available are dependent the number of sentries and the amount of energy they have. It seems reasonable to me that the more Sentries there are the better/easier the forcefields will be, considering Sentries are such a large gas investment. The number of forcefields required are dependant on the engagement position (the map) and the size of the armies involved (assuming a wide area). It is these factors, along with player execution that determine how effective a set of forcefields will be.
a case where one unit using an expensive (250/250) ability can somewhat negate the FFs,
What is your point here, are you trying to say that it is an unreasonable cost to be able to circumvent forcefields? I would argue that the fact that top players will rush to get Tunneling Claws in order to do this pretty much proves otherwise. To put it into perspective 6 sentries (which is a common amount to get vs Zerg but it is often more) costs 600 gas, this slows down Protoss tech significantly, for this amount of gas you could get Burrow + Movement for 250 and you still have 350 for Roaches, which is a total of 14 Roaches. It's just my opinion but I think this is quite reasonable.
Also, if this was your argument it is just bad, the question is whether you can micro against Forcefields with respect to the design of the game, unless it is totally unreasonable, the cost does not diminish the capacity to do so.
and a case where only 2 units (and you concede, really 1) can even do anything about a FF.
Actually I still said both are capable, simply one is more difficult, try reading next time before you reply to a post.
And then you talk about a dance between players before engagement, as if that's something that happens only because of FF,
No, I said that players dance when Forcefields are a threat not because they are a threat.
and doesn't happen in BW as well. I think you need to start thinking big picture here.
I never mentioned Brood War, thats just your inherent bias coming up again, I simply said it adds more depth, and that is exactly what it does.
On January 15 2012 14:36 DoubleReed wrote: 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.
Thank you to DoubleReed for understanding exactly the point I was trying to make.
On January 15 2012 16:16 EternaLLegacy wrote: 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.
So what you are trying to say here is that its not a fundamental design flaw and that players can deal with Forcefields as they get better?? Wow that sounds completely different to your whole "You can do nothing against forcefields!" argument.
Maybe your reading comprehension is lacking, but FF clearly REDUCES micro available to the opposing player. That's literally the point of the spell.
The fact that you question his reading comprehension is a joke when you can't seem to understand a very basic point I was making and you once again say that FF reduces micro available, which he did not dispute in his post.
On January 16 2012 13:00 Roe wrote: I disagree with you on the no zone control. Forcefield fits that role exactly. PDD gives you zone control as well. And in the expansion we will see any lacking in this field be helped out by shredder, viper, etc. Maybe PDD needs to be stronger somehow, because it's sort of linear right now. You put it down, it absorbs a certain amount of hits, then needs to recharge slowly.
Its not really zone control if its only available for a very short time.
I can literally fortify a position forever with enough tanks/mines/turrets/depots. It does require a big investment though and a lot of precious time and effort, its like building a castle.
PDD/Forcefield is a relatively small investment but the scale at which you can control a zone is also much less.
You can do essentially the exact same thing in SC2, have you not watched MVP play split map against Zerg?
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.
What? FF reduces micro the same way that Dark Swarm does. If you get caught badly with Dark Swarm, you die. You can try to run away, of course, and you better run away unless you just want to lose your whole army. With FF, you engage properly you can mitigate the FF and come out on top. You only fail that hard against FF if you engage stupidly.
I fail to see how FF is more 1-sided than any other ability.
I mean when Day9 is talking about Frisbees and Baseballs, Forcefield is obviously a frisbee. And wow, immediately just saying "Yup FF in BW would obviously be OP and ZvP would just be impossible" makes me think no arguing or sense will even shift your mind away from this closed thinking. Cut the feedback loop, please, and actually consider what forcefield would do in BW. Don't immediately look for bad things it would do, think of how it would interact with the other units.
Clearly you don't watch BW. Just how the hell are FF and dark swarm the same? FF prevents your army from moving. It reduces micro for the opposing player. Dark swarm forces your army to move. It ADDS micro.
On January 15 2012 22:39 Big J wrote: Of course BW was really lucky. It has absolutly huge design flaws: bio vs Protoss or bio vs Terran anyone?
Just because not every unit is viable in a matchup doesn't mean the game has huge design flaws. Just how is SC2 different in this regard?
Well done OP. You really hit the nail on the head with this thread.
I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I think your confusing lots of clicking with 'meaningful micro'. As the op stated, thier attacking whilst moving took the necessity of choice out of the players hands, as in, "what happens if i attack here?" take for example you wanna snipe an OL flying around somewhere, is there a danger to your units if you scoot in and blow him up? More often than not the answer is no, sure there's fungal, but that's another thing entirely, i'm getting at any static D or queens won't do any real damage to your units in MOST situations to act as a deterence from you killing that OL because you don't need to stop and shoot.
Contrast this to mutalisks having to stop to shoot, the player has to say "if i park in this mineral field how long can i stay? where are his marines to chase me down, will they pinch my escape route off with thier bio and static D and kill some mutas off?" Also more importantly "is it worth it?" is one that even most pro's seem to get wrong with muta harass.
I'm pretty sure that is what the OP was getting at, that pheonix design reduced the necessary cognitive decision making of the player, which is why he felt they were flawed.
And that is just one unit out of many, IMO this dude should have a chat to Dustin, I feel like I would enjoy SC2 a lot more.
On January 16 2012 11:01 sluggaslamoo wrote: The infantry also had good pathing while not running in a ball. Could you imagine how bad CoH would be if everything moved in one clumped ball?
Blizzard are in denial about their pathing, it really really sucks, it is so badly designed, yet they defend it as if its the best thing since sliced bread. There are much better pathing algorithms out there.
Really? How on earth are you calling Sc2's pathfinding bad. It is probably the best path finding in any rts game to date. Everyone keeps going on about how things are all balled up and that's bad - and I would agree to an extent - however they never give a solution, how should units move? Should they all maintain a spacing greater than currently? Bump into each other more like in BW and WC3? The current pathing is the most logical, units move where they are told in the most efficient and predictable way.
Most of the problems that unit clumping cause can be solved by different unit dynamics.
Also could you share some of the much better pathing algorithms because I'm very interested.
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I think your confusing lots of clicking with 'meaningful micro'. As the op stated, thier attacking whilst moving took the necessity of choice out of the players hands, as in, "what happens if i attack here?" take for example you wanna snipe an OL flying around somewhere, is there a danger to your units if you scoot in and blow him up? More often than not the answer is no, sure there's fungal, but that's another thing entirely, i'm getting at any static D or queens won't do any real damage to your units in MOST situations to act as a deterence from you killing that OL because you don't need to stop and shoot.
Contrast this to mutalisks having to stop to shoot, the player has to say "if i park in this mineral field how long can i stay? where are his marines to chase me down, will they pinch my escape route off with thier bio and static D and kill some mutas off?" Also more importantly "is it worth it?" is one that even most pro's seem to get wrong with muta harass.
I'm pretty sure that is what the OP was getting at, that pheonix design reduced the necessary cognitive decision making of the player, which is why he felt they were flawed.
And that is just one unit out of many, IMO this dude should have a chat to Dustin, I feel like I would enjoy SC2 a lot more.
I think you're slightly confused about what the word "micro" means.. it does not mean "ability to choose", which is what you're describing above. Besides, Phoenixes have to stop in the mineral line to pick up units as well, so your analogy doesn't hold up. (Static defenses are amazing vs phoenixes btw, which is why we're back to what I was saying earlier. Phoenixes are fast moving, low hp, not really great dmg units that needs constant attention, or else you're going to fly into a bunch of spores and get them all killed. They are not a unit that can be 1a'ed to victory. Alas, they require micro)
Also, if you played beta around the time when phoenixes could only stop and shoot, you'd know how atrocious they where. They weren't really microable at all (partly because of the low acceleration at the time, which I do believe they buffed).
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I think your confusing lots of clicking with 'meaningful micro'. As the op stated, thier attacking whilst moving took the necessity of choice out of the players hands, as in, "what happens if i attack here?" take for example you wanna snipe an OL flying around somewhere, is there a danger to your units if you scoot in and blow him up? More often than not the answer is no, sure there's fungal, but that's another thing entirely, i'm getting at any static D or queens won't do any real damage to your units in MOST situations to act as a deterence from you killing that OL because you don't need to stop and shoot.
Contrast this to mutalisks having to stop to shoot, the player has to say "if i park in this mineral field how long can i stay? where are his marines to chase me down, will they pinch my escape route off with thier bio and static D and kill some mutas off?" Also more importantly "is it worth it?" is one that even most pro's seem to get wrong with muta harass.
I'm pretty sure that is what the OP was getting at, that pheonix design reduced the necessary cognitive decision making of the player, which is why he felt they were flawed.
And that is just one unit out of many, IMO this dude should have a chat to Dustin, I feel like I would enjoy SC2 a lot more.
It seems to me that people keep adjusting what defines micro to fit their argument. First it is simply controlling your unit, then it becomes "meaningful micro" which is likely defined as "whatever example I give, but not what you said above".
It is fact that you do not need to micro at much at you did on BW. Units in SC2 require far less babysitting and have more modern AI. Control is less focused on making your unit function and more about making them function well and efficiently. It is a matter of opinion if that is good or bad and if it makes the game more enjoyable.
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I think your confusing lots of clicking with 'meaningful micro'. As the op stated, thier attacking whilst moving took the necessity of choice out of the players hands, as in, "what happens if i attack here?" take for example you wanna snipe an OL flying around somewhere, is there a danger to your units if you scoot in and blow him up? More often than not the answer is no, sure there's fungal, but that's another thing entirely, i'm getting at any static D or queens won't do any real damage to your units in MOST situations to act as a deterence from you killing that OL because you don't need to stop and shoot.
Contrast this to mutalisks having to stop to shoot, the player has to say "if i park in this mineral field how long can i stay? where are his marines to chase me down, will they pinch my escape route off with thier bio and static D and kill some mutas off?" Also more importantly "is it worth it?" is one that even most pro's seem to get wrong with muta harass.
I'm pretty sure that is what the OP was getting at, that pheonix design reduced the necessary cognitive decision making of the player, which is why he felt they were flawed.
And that is just one unit out of many, IMO this dude should have a chat to Dustin, I feel like I would enjoy SC2 a lot more.
The threats you mention are exactly the same for both units, its just that Phoenix are able to keep moving while doing this, this does not diminish the congnitve decision making for the player, it just means that there is slightly less risk for the Phoenix user, this is not gamebreaking/bad game design/whatever, it's just an advantage of the Phoenix, don't try to delude yourself otherwise.
On the other hand, if Phoenix want to harrass mineral lines for example they must lift the drones which not only forces them to stop, but puts them in a vulnerable position.
Excludo's is right, you get next to nothing out of Phoenix unless you micro them intensely, compare 10 Phoenix to 10 Muta which one do you have to micro more to Harrass a mineral line? Or kill off any ground units at all even. Watch how a top level player (such as Hero) uses Phoenix before you decide whether they are micro intensive units or not.
I would argue that the threat in your Overlord example is significantly smaller for Vikings because they have such long range, so by your logic Vikings are bad for the game because they mean that Terran has to think less about killing off Overlords. I'm not trying to suggest that Vikings are good/bad for the game but this is REALLY BAD LOGIC.
Micro-"reducing" Units: The Sentry: You can lift your terran units over forcefields with medivacs, I see it pretty often and it is the sign of a great player. Roaches burrow under it if you get Burrow, few Zergs do, not the games fault. Plus Forcefields can be broken and have not that high of a range, meaning Sentries can be sniped easily if you want to place the FFs behind Zerg.
Fungal: yep that makes you stay there for a short period of time, if you allow it to happen.
Concussive: you get a few more kills while he retreats.
So you can defend against this with... tadaaa: MICRO. Correct focus fire, army movement and engagement are what works against these Units. Instead of saying it fucks everything up, how about seing it for what it is? A way to punish someone that takes a bad fight and handles it poorly.
Micro-"less" Units:
The Colossus: You need the correct targeting for it to really pay off, also you have to babysit it, move your army correctly in order to protect it etc. I have seen People actively using its cliff-walk-ability. The last time I saw this? Yesterday in a pro match.
The Colossus requires a lot of "Micro" in terms that you have to micro everything else correctly to protect it. Also the Target fire thing, a Colossus that hits a single roach is wasted, if you let it attack 3 Hydras however it suddenly becomes a lot better.
The Roach: Yeah, Roaches are a boring Unit. I believe that the main Reason why Roachesa re used the way they are right now is because players suck against them. If my opponnents get a lot of Raoches I get upgraded Immortals and delay every other Tech. With Immortals and Forcefields Roaches are just a bad Unit, they do nothing but die. The reason you don't see that many Roaches against Terrans are Marauders. The reason you see a lot of Roaches against Protoss are Protoss players. Every single f*king game a pro plays vs "mass" Roach, they get Colossi and tech to storm. WTF!? instead of getting 2 Colossi with range just get 6 or so freaking Immortals. Suddenly the Roaches are dead supply and nothing more.
Roaches to me seem to be designed as a counter attack/harras Unit. You have high mobility and the ability to move while Burrowed + extra regen. That sounds like something that attacks a fragile Base while the defender moved away and then retreats, heals up and move invis somewhere else. Or if he lacks detection you sneek somewhere to snipe important tech/do economical damage.
Roaches are in straight up fights bad Units, everyone will agree, the suck for 2 Supply. Once again, Terrans have figured out that Marauders kill Roaches, thus you see them most of the time to defend against Helions or to put preassure on the Terran with harrasment etc. Protoss still think you have to get Colossi against zerg no matter what Units they build. Hell, some Pros get Colossi vs Mutaling rather then Templars.
The Thor: Well.. he will target air with higher priority, meaning you need to micro when Z brings overlords... other than that, I completely agree.
The Phoenix: Highly mobile fragile short range unit. Do I really have to tell you that those are not the criteria to a-move!?!?!?!?
Zone-Controlling:
The Siege Tank: "Less time to set them up and siege" Well, that doesn't matter when you talk about zone control, does it? Zone Control is not a reactive thing.
"Glass Cannons and bad ones" No, just no! Immortals may be good, that is what EMP is for. Suddenly they get killed with like 3 shots. Blink Stalker are soo great. Yep, against 3 Siegetanks that are clumped they are. However Stalker SUCK against Tanks, meaning they die freaking fast to a bigger Siegeline. The reason you don't see people playing with a ton of tanks against Protoss is that there is no need right now. I strongly believe that over the next year or two a lot of mech play will find its way into TvP.
Regarding Zerg map control via Burrow. Completely agree, there is nothing compareble to the BW map control Lurker granted. However I think that is because Zerg have different Playstyle and BW is not SC2. Zerg now is designed to be the agressor, to attack and harras at multiple points and counter-attack everytime you leave your base. If you add a Unit that contains your opponnent while you get an army to do all that, the game becomes pretty boring and we would only see ZvZ since there is no way to inflict any damage without taking a ton more. That happens against a race that will almost always have better economy. Yeah, no thanks.
Static defense: Agreed, static defense is extremely hard to manage in terms of when to get how much.
Terran: But Terrans have Bunkers which are pretty good, I think it works for Terran really good early on since the Bunkers are a little risk, you get 75% if you didn't need them.+
Protoss: For Protoss, I must say I feel like the Cannons are complete Trash. But what is that? A Sentry? Cannons plus Forcefields are a great early game defense!
Zerg: I feel like Zerg more relies on Queens to defend. Not only that Queens are actually pretty good, with the inject Zerg has a great production capability early on, say off of 2 hatches. You need to see your opponnent moving out and get a ton of Units, you do not need static defense early on. Later you can get so many Spines that they become pretty good pared with something like infestors
Conclusion: It is SC2 not BW. The Micro aspect overall is a smaller portion of the gameplay as in BW, so is the Macro aspect. Meaning that strategy is what will win the game. Is that better? Is it worse? I have no clue, you decide for yourself. Also, give it time. I believe that the game will get a lot more demanding over the next years. Comparing a game that has been played for so long by professionals to something that new is just silly.
Anyway, no one will read this since it got a little out of hand :D Still posting it though!
On January 16 2012 20:57 rEalGuapo wrote: The reason you see a lot of Roaches against Protoss are Protoss players. Every single f*king game a pro plays vs "mass" Roach, they get Colossi and tech to storm. WTF!? instead of getting 2 Colossi with range just get 6 or so freaking Immortals. Suddenly the Roaches are dead supply and nothing more.
Roaches are in straight up fights bad Units, everyone will agree, the suck for 2 Supply. Once again, Terrans have figured out that Marauders kill Roaches, thus you see them most of the time to defend against Helions or to put preassure on the Terran with harrasment etc. Protoss still think you have to get Colossi against zerg no matter what Units they build. Hell, some Pros get Colossi vs Mutaling rather then Templars.
I think the reason many Protoss still go for Colossus against Roach-Zerg is Zerg's ability to tech switch. Colossi may not be the optimal unit versus Roaches, but they do their job. Meanwhile, they are also a super good unit against Lings, Banelings, Hydra and to a lesser extent Muta and Infestors (forcing basetrades). They are simply good units to have, regardless of what strat your opponent plays. Meanwhile, Immortals are very good against Roaches but suck against pretty much everything not-Ultralisks.
Having too many Immortals puts you in a position where the Zerg can notice this, completely forego any further Roach production and go Ling/Baneling, Muta, Hydra, or some other non-Roach unit composition and stomp you. You will not have the raw killing power needed to force a Zerg to pull his Muta ball back, and you cannot endlessly rely on forcefields to save your army from destruction at the hands of masses of cheap units. In short, it's a very hard Roach counter that fails very quickly to anything that isn't Roaches.
Templar suffer from other problems that make them a difficult unit to get. While they are decent when morphed to Archons, this is obviously a step back from Colossi or Storm. Their attacks run out, diminishing their use in a constantly pressuring/skirmishing army - you need to keep reinforcing with new Templar, and this can quickly turn into a very expensive affair when compared to just getting 5 Colossi and being done with it. In addition, they are very slow units when not constantly ferried around in a Prism, so there are mobility issues with this unit comp as well.
Colossi are simply a good middle ground that allows you to defend against Roaches while also being safe or able to react to other unit compositions without doing a full 180 on your tech.
On January 16 2012 22:07 Myrddraal wrote: Also I don't think Colossi have reached their full potential just yet. For example, I really hope in the future a lot more games look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw9r2jCuIHA&feature=related
If anyone can watch this and say that Colossi are microless units I will be very surprised.
On January 16 2012 20:57 rEalGuapo wrote: Please be more black and white....
Micro-"reducing" Units: The Sentry: You can lift your terran units over forcefields with medivacs, I see it pretty often and it is the sign of a great player. Roaches burrow under it if you get Burrow, few Zergs do, not the games fault. Plus Forcefields can be broken and have not that high of a range, meaning Sentries can be sniped easily if you want to place the FFs behind Zerg.
Fungal: yep that makes you stay there for a short period of time, if you allow it to happen.
Concussive: you get a few more kills while he retreats.
So you can defend against this with... tadaaa: MICRO. Correct focus fire, army movement and engagement are what works against these Units. Instead of saying it fucks everything up, how about seing it for what it is? A way to punish someone that takes a bad fight and handles it poorly.
Micro-"less" Units:
The Colossus: You need the correct targeting for it to really pay off, also you have to babysit it, move your army correctly in order to protect it etc. I have seen People actively using its cliff-walk-ability. The last time I saw this? Yesterday in a pro match.
The Colossus requires a lot of "Micro" in terms that you have to micro everything else correctly to protect it. Also the Target fire thing, a Colossus that hits a single roach is wasted, if you let it attack 3 Hydras however it suddenly becomes a lot better.
The Roach: Yeah, Roaches are a boring Unit. I believe that the main Reason why Roachesa re used the way they are right now is because players suck against them. If my opponnents get a lot of Raoches I get upgraded Immortals and delay every other Tech. With Immortals and Forcefields Roaches are just a bad Unit, they do nothing but die. The reason you don't see that many Roaches against Terrans are Marauders. The reason you see a lot of Roaches against Protoss are Protoss players. Every single f*king game a pro plays vs "mass" Roach, they get Colossi and tech to storm. WTF!? instead of getting 2 Colossi with range just get 6 or so freaking Immortals. Suddenly the Roaches are dead supply and nothing more.
Roaches to me seem to be designed as a counter attack/harras Unit. You have high mobility and the ability to move while Burrowed + extra regen. That sounds like something that attacks a fragile Base while the defender moved away and then retreats, heals up and move invis somewhere else. Or if he lacks detection you sneek somewhere to snipe important tech/do economical damage.
Roaches are in straight up fights bad Units, everyone will agree, the suck for 2 Supply. Once again, Terrans have figured out that Marauders kill Roaches, thus you see them most of the time to defend against Helions or to put preassure on the Terran with harrasment etc. Protoss still think you have to get Colossi against zerg no matter what Units they build. Hell, some Pros get Colossi vs Mutaling rather then Templars.
The Thor: Well.. he will target air with higher priority, meaning you need to micro when Z brings overlords... other than that, I completely agree.
The Phoenix: Highly mobile fragile short range unit. Do I really have to tell you that those are not the criteria to a-move!?!?!?!?
Zone-Controlling:
The Siege Tank: "Less time to set them up and siege" Well, that doesn't matter when you talk about zone control, does it? Zone Control is not a reactive thing.
"Glass Cannons and bad ones" No, just no! Immortals may be good, that is what EMP is for. Suddenly they get killed with like 3 shots. Blink Stalker are soo great. Yep, against 3 Siegetanks that are clumped they are. However Stalker SUCK against Tanks, meaning they die freaking fast to a bigger Siegeline. The reason you don't see people playing with a ton of tanks against Protoss is that there is no need right now. I strongly believe that over the next year or two a lot of mech play will find its way into TvP.
Regarding Zerg map control via Burrow. Completely agree, there is nothing compareble to the BW map control Lurker granted. However I think that is because Zerg have different Playstyle and BW is not SC2. Zerg now is designed to be the agressor, to attack and harras at multiple points and counter-attack everytime you leave your base. If you add a Unit that contains your opponnent while you get an army to do all that, the game becomes pretty boring and we would only see ZvZ since there is no way to inflict any damage without taking a ton more. That happens against a race that will almost always have better economy. Yeah, no thanks.
Static defense: Agreed, static defense is extremely hard to manage in terms of when to get how much.
Terran: But Terrans have Bunkers which are pretty good, I think it works for Terran really good early on since the Bunkers are a little risk, you get 75% if you didn't need them.+
Protoss: For Protoss, I must say I feel like the Cannons are complete Trash. But what is that? A Sentry? Cannons plus Forcefields are a great early game defense!
Zerg: I feel like Zerg more relies on Queens to defend. Not only that Queens are actually pretty good, with the inject Zerg has a great production capability early on, say off of 2 hatches. You need to see your opponnent moving out and get a ton of Units, you do not need static defense early on. Later you can get so many Spines that they become pretty good pared with something like infestors
Conclusion: It is SC2 not BW. The Micro aspect overall is a smaller portion of the gameplay as in BW, so is the Macro aspect. Meaning that strategy is what will win the game. Is that better? Is it worse? I have no clue, you decide for yourself. Also, give it time. I believe that the game will get a lot more demanding over the next years. Comparing a game that has been played for so long by professionals to something that new is just silly.
Anyway, no one will read this since it got a little out of hand :D Still posting it though!
finally a good post in this thread. one that actually gets that the OP is just wrong with anything apart from the overall micro, which is due to pathing and unit selection, but has nothing to do with stuff like Fungals or FFs or roaches. i actually cant believe that people here pretend that units like dragoons and corsairs would take more micro then stalker and phoenix in an SC2 enviroment (sc2 AI etc...). you just plainly can do less with them, and they are just plainly stronger in balls.
On January 16 2012 20:57 rEalGuapo wrote: Please be more black and white....
Micro-"reducing" Units: The Sentry: You can lift your terran units over forcefields with medivacs, I see it pretty often and it is the sign of a great player. Roaches burrow under it if you get Burrow, few Zergs do, not the games fault. Plus Forcefields can be broken and have not that high of a range, meaning Sentries can be sniped easily if you want to place the FFs behind Zerg.
Fungal: yep that makes you stay there for a short period of time, if you allow it to happen.
Concussive: you get a few more kills while he retreats.
So you can defend against this with... tadaaa: MICRO. Correct focus fire, army movement and engagement are what works against these Units. Instead of saying it fucks everything up, how about seing it for what it is? A way to punish someone that takes a bad fight and handles it poorly.
Micro-"less" Units:
The Colossus: You need the correct targeting for it to really pay off, also you have to babysit it, move your army correctly in order to protect it etc. I have seen People actively using its cliff-walk-ability. The last time I saw this? Yesterday in a pro match.
The Colossus requires a lot of "Micro" in terms that you have to micro everything else correctly to protect it. Also the Target fire thing, a Colossus that hits a single roach is wasted, if you let it attack 3 Hydras however it suddenly becomes a lot better.
The Roach: Yeah, Roaches are a boring Unit. I believe that the main Reason why Roachesa re used the way they are right now is because players suck against them. If my opponnents get a lot of Raoches I get upgraded Immortals and delay every other Tech. With Immortals and Forcefields Roaches are just a bad Unit, they do nothing but die. The reason you don't see that many Roaches against Terrans are Marauders. The reason you see a lot of Roaches against Protoss are Protoss players. Every single f*king game a pro plays vs "mass" Roach, they get Colossi and tech to storm. WTF!? instead of getting 2 Colossi with range just get 6 or so freaking Immortals. Suddenly the Roaches are dead supply and nothing more.
Roaches to me seem to be designed as a counter attack/harras Unit. You have high mobility and the ability to move while Burrowed + extra regen. That sounds like something that attacks a fragile Base while the defender moved away and then retreats, heals up and move invis somewhere else. Or if he lacks detection you sneek somewhere to snipe important tech/do economical damage.
Roaches are in straight up fights bad Units, everyone will agree, the suck for 2 Supply. Once again, Terrans have figured out that Marauders kill Roaches, thus you see them most of the time to defend against Helions or to put preassure on the Terran with harrasment etc. Protoss still think you have to get Colossi against zerg no matter what Units they build. Hell, some Pros get Colossi vs Mutaling rather then Templars.
The Thor: Well.. he will target air with higher priority, meaning you need to micro when Z brings overlords... other than that, I completely agree.
The Phoenix: Highly mobile fragile short range unit. Do I really have to tell you that those are not the criteria to a-move!?!?!?!?
Zone-Controlling:
The Siege Tank: "Less time to set them up and siege" Well, that doesn't matter when you talk about zone control, does it? Zone Control is not a reactive thing.
"Glass Cannons and bad ones" No, just no! Immortals may be good, that is what EMP is for. Suddenly they get killed with like 3 shots. Blink Stalker are soo great. Yep, against 3 Siegetanks that are clumped they are. However Stalker SUCK against Tanks, meaning they die freaking fast to a bigger Siegeline. The reason you don't see people playing with a ton of tanks against Protoss is that there is no need right now. I strongly believe that over the next year or two a lot of mech play will find its way into TvP.
Regarding Zerg map control via Burrow. Completely agree, there is nothing compareble to the BW map control Lurker granted. However I think that is because Zerg have different Playstyle and BW is not SC2. Zerg now is designed to be the agressor, to attack and harras at multiple points and counter-attack everytime you leave your base. If you add a Unit that contains your opponnent while you get an army to do all that, the game becomes pretty boring and we would only see ZvZ since there is no way to inflict any damage without taking a ton more. That happens against a race that will almost always have better economy. Yeah, no thanks.
Static defense: Agreed, static defense is extremely hard to manage in terms of when to get how much.
Terran: But Terrans have Bunkers which are pretty good, I think it works for Terran really good early on since the Bunkers are a little risk, you get 75% if you didn't need them.+
Protoss: For Protoss, I must say I feel like the Cannons are complete Trash. But what is that? A Sentry? Cannons plus Forcefields are a great early game defense!
Zerg: I feel like Zerg more relies on Queens to defend. Not only that Queens are actually pretty good, with the inject Zerg has a great production capability early on, say off of 2 hatches. You need to see your opponnent moving out and get a ton of Units, you do not need static defense early on. Later you can get so many Spines that they become pretty good pared with something like infestors
Conclusion: It is SC2 not BW. The Micro aspect overall is a smaller portion of the gameplay as in BW, so is the Macro aspect. Meaning that strategy is what will win the game. Is that better? Is it worse? I have no clue, you decide for yourself. Also, give it time. I believe that the game will get a lot more demanding over the next years. Comparing a game that has been played for so long by professionals to something that new is just silly.
Anyway, no one will read this since it got a little out of hand :D Still posting it though!
Just wanted to point out that the reason most protoss make colossus and storm against roach is because 5 immortals are useless when zerglings roll in, which they will. Whereas storm + collussus is great against pretty much all the ground compositions zerg throw at you.
It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I'm not saying that the phoenix itself is a bad unit. I think I wrote that poorly cause people are confused what I mean by move-shoot mechanic. I'm saying that having units attack anything in range by default is a REALLY bad mechanic. It would be bad on ANY unit. It reduces the decision making of when to take a shot vs when to move. It also was a pathetic attempt at recreating the moving shot from BW (which is LITERALLY what we as a community were asking for) and the fact that the community just laid down and said, "eh, we give up, close enough" is very saddening. Blizzard's dev team clearly has no idea what the heck high level BW even consisted of, which is why the game looks like it was designed by a bunch of kids with ADD.
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
On January 16 2012 20:57 rEalGuapo wrote: Please be more black and white....
Micro-"reducing" Units: The Sentry: You can lift your terran units over forcefields with medivacs, I see it pretty often and it is the sign of a great player. Roaches burrow under it if you get Burrow, few Zergs do, not the games fault. Plus Forcefields can be broken and have not that high of a range, meaning Sentries can be sniped easily if you want to place the FFs behind Zerg.
Fungal: yep that makes you stay there for a short period of time, if you allow it to happen.
Concussive: you get a few more kills while he retreats.
So you can defend against this with... tadaaa: MICRO. Correct focus fire, army movement and engagement are what works against these Units. Instead of saying it fucks everything up, how about seing it for what it is? A way to punish someone that takes a bad fight and handles it poorly.
Micro-"less" Units:
The Colossus: You need the correct targeting for it to really pay off, also you have to babysit it, move your army correctly in order to protect it etc. I have seen People actively using its cliff-walk-ability. The last time I saw this? Yesterday in a pro match.
The Colossus requires a lot of "Micro" in terms that you have to micro everything else correctly to protect it. Also the Target fire thing, a Colossus that hits a single roach is wasted, if you let it attack 3 Hydras however it suddenly becomes a lot better.
The Roach: Yeah, Roaches are a boring Unit. I believe that the main Reason why Roachesa re used the way they are right now is because players suck against them. If my opponnents get a lot of Raoches I get upgraded Immortals and delay every other Tech. With Immortals and Forcefields Roaches are just a bad Unit, they do nothing but die. The reason you don't see that many Roaches against Terrans are Marauders. The reason you see a lot of Roaches against Protoss are Protoss players. Every single f*king game a pro plays vs "mass" Roach, they get Colossi and tech to storm. WTF!? instead of getting 2 Colossi with range just get 6 or so freaking Immortals. Suddenly the Roaches are dead supply and nothing more.
Roaches to me seem to be designed as a counter attack/harras Unit. You have high mobility and the ability to move while Burrowed + extra regen. That sounds like something that attacks a fragile Base while the defender moved away and then retreats, heals up and move invis somewhere else. Or if he lacks detection you sneek somewhere to snipe important tech/do economical damage.
Roaches are in straight up fights bad Units, everyone will agree, the suck for 2 Supply. Once again, Terrans have figured out that Marauders kill Roaches, thus you see them most of the time to defend against Helions or to put preassure on the Terran with harrasment etc. Protoss still think you have to get Colossi against zerg no matter what Units they build. Hell, some Pros get Colossi vs Mutaling rather then Templars.
The Thor: Well.. he will target air with higher priority, meaning you need to micro when Z brings overlords... other than that, I completely agree.
The Phoenix: Highly mobile fragile short range unit. Do I really have to tell you that those are not the criteria to a-move!?!?!?!?
Zone-Controlling:
The Siege Tank: "Less time to set them up and siege" Well, that doesn't matter when you talk about zone control, does it? Zone Control is not a reactive thing.
"Glass Cannons and bad ones" No, just no! Immortals may be good, that is what EMP is for. Suddenly they get killed with like 3 shots. Blink Stalker are soo great. Yep, against 3 Siegetanks that are clumped they are. However Stalker SUCK against Tanks, meaning they die freaking fast to a bigger Siegeline. The reason you don't see people playing with a ton of tanks against Protoss is that there is no need right now. I strongly believe that over the next year or two a lot of mech play will find its way into TvP.
Regarding Zerg map control via Burrow. Completely agree, there is nothing compareble to the BW map control Lurker granted. However I think that is because Zerg have different Playstyle and BW is not SC2. Zerg now is designed to be the agressor, to attack and harras at multiple points and counter-attack everytime you leave your base. If you add a Unit that contains your opponnent while you get an army to do all that, the game becomes pretty boring and we would only see ZvZ since there is no way to inflict any damage without taking a ton more. That happens against a race that will almost always have better economy. Yeah, no thanks.
Static defense: Agreed, static defense is extremely hard to manage in terms of when to get how much.
Terran: But Terrans have Bunkers which are pretty good, I think it works for Terran really good early on since the Bunkers are a little risk, you get 75% if you didn't need them.+
Protoss: For Protoss, I must say I feel like the Cannons are complete Trash. But what is that? A Sentry? Cannons plus Forcefields are a great early game defense!
Zerg: I feel like Zerg more relies on Queens to defend. Not only that Queens are actually pretty good, with the inject Zerg has a great production capability early on, say off of 2 hatches. You need to see your opponnent moving out and get a ton of Units, you do not need static defense early on. Later you can get so many Spines that they become pretty good pared with something like infestors
Conclusion: It is SC2 not BW. The Micro aspect overall is a smaller portion of the gameplay as in BW, so is the Macro aspect. Meaning that strategy is what will win the game. Is that better? Is it worse? I have no clue, you decide for yourself. Also, give it time. I believe that the game will get a lot more demanding over the next years. Comparing a game that has been played for so long by professionals to something that new is just silly.
Anyway, no one will read this since it got a little out of hand :D Still posting it though!
This is actually straight up wrong, and misses the point on so many levels that its hard to contemplate.
Forcefields 1st FF can't be broken untill you get massive units, for Terran this is quite late into the game and they won't get Thor in TvP because mech just straight up sucks against Protoss and this won't change untill HoTS (more on that later).
Zerg can only break FF with Ultra, which is still a very bad unit, can easily be tanked by zealots and shredded by immortals +they have a hard time getting enough surface area to work effectively. And also Ultra comes into the game very late as well and not part of the standard composition.
So while the option to break FF is there, it comes into the game so late and in such inconvenient units for the MU that this becomes irrelevant.
2nd The only other way to micro vs FF is with either burrow or drops, both of witch come into play by the midgame point. Now what is there to stop Toss from also sniping the Medivacs with stalkers right after he FFs an army? The zealots will tank and deal most of the damage to the trapped units anyway, the stalkers mearly assures the army will take heavy damage. And even absurdly assuming you had a thor in the army, it would be too slow to knock down the FF in time and you'd still probably take heavy damage.
So really, FF still limits in game micro. Yes you can dance and position all you want, everyone does that, they did that in BW too. The thing is though, once FF lands there are no ways you can come out without taking heavy losses, most times you don't make it out at all. So, pre battle micro is there, once FF lands in battle micro starts to become a non factor, its that strong.
Now, if FF had a set amount of HP and armor, enough to be good early game but much worst late game, than you'd have more options of in battle micro. You could try to risk your medivacs to free some units, or you could micro and shoot down some FF to escape. You've now got more options, as with before you really only had 1 very costly option, its still an improvement and I don't see how anyone can argue it isn't. I guess people are just way too zelous to bash on these kinds of posts to actually even dare to think them trough.
For zerg, well, while technically you can escape FF with burrow, in reality only roaches and infestors will escape, lings, banes and hydras. Once stuck behind FF are almost allways dead. You maybe try to lift these up and save them, but the overlord drop and speed upgrades are expensive and time consuming, and you are risking your supply depos now to save your units, so still a very bad situation. And FF still does exactly what the protoss needs, he effectively blocks the zerg from getting a good engagement, while you can escape FF, you can't push against it as zerg.
So again, FF doesn't limit pre-battle micro, since zerg will still try to set up flanks and stuff, while toss still tries to get the best angle and choke, but once the FFs land, either the zerg army is all going to be trapped and die, or the toss army gets protected behind an impenetrable wall while it shells away at the zerg army with colossus and storm, and the only thing zerg can do about it is send in some corrupters and hope they kill the colossus before the colossus kills the entire zerg army.
Again, here if units where able to destroy FF the zerg might still take heavy losses while he DPSes the FF down, but he might still have a fighting chance and wouldn't be forced to go Infestor, Brood Lord, Corrupter every late game scenario.
Fungal Growth This actually may be even worst than FF, because, once this hits, you really can't do anything, you can't pick up and leave, you can't burrow, you can't clock, you can't do shit.
Again, this ability forces a pre-battle dance, but again this happens a lot in other engagements as well, there is nothing special about this. What is special though is that, once FG hits, there is next to 0 in game battle micro you can do. You can't split and run away marines and they will all die to banes or to the next fungal. You can maybe try to focus the infestors but then you are split trying to fight both banes and infestors while the lings are streaming in, murdering your tanks and picking apart your already weakened marines.
Against Protoss, your zealots can't charge, your stalkers can't blink back and your sentries will die from being fungaled to death, limiting your FF count, so again there are very few things you can do. Maybe you can try to FF one side and run, but if the pre-battle micro happens, as it always does the zerg set up a flank and you're stuck between to fungaling armies, unable to blink or charge out and with not enough FF to last indefinetly.
So again, wouldn't it really be better for the game if, not only could you dance around the battlefield with your micro, bait FF and Fungals, but also, once the engagement starts, still be able to react to FF and Fungal, to still be able to split and micro? Can you honestly, with a straight face, tell me that its better to let FF and FG the way they are, when with a few tweeks they could be even better/more engaging spells?
A-move units The colossus is really terribly designed for micro. If you move it at the wrong time, you can cancel its attack, even though the animation might still show. And, what exactly do you need to focus fire it against? Against terran bio and zerg roach/ling it needs absolutely no focus fire, its just as effective without focus as it is with focus. The only worthy thing to focus would probably be infestors or ultras if the zerg makes them, there is no large and dangerous terran unit you'll want to focus.
And the moving of the colossus is very easy too, with its very low unit colision it is super manuevrable. The cost/reward for properly setting up a group of colossus to even say zealots, stalkers and immortals is next to nothing. If you don't manage your army properly you could end up with zealots in the back, stalkers in the front and immortals dancing not firing. All of those are huge slip ups that can lose you a game. If the Colossus is out of position, it almost doesn't matter since it will just walk back a bit over its own units and be just fine.
Risks/reward with using colossus is just broken, and the unit itself is broken, being able to deal large amount of damage with minimum input.
Roaches are actually surprisingly cost effective untill you get aoe or some kind of battle control. Roaches in head to head fights straight up rape Zealots and Stalkers, especially with speed and/or on creep. Toss has FF simply just to cut the zerg army into bite size pieces so it can have any chance of winning, so that should keep you guessing.
Roaches are also quite strong against early marines and small groups of marauders. Once a bio ball is large enough, roaches stop becoming so effective, but they are still not that bad.
But again roaches in large numbers require very little in battle input, when they get into big numbers, they have a hard time getting surface area with their short range, so a bit of splitting and surounding is required, but once said surround is executed you can just let the roaches do their thing and grab a drink.
At least Marauders, especially in TvP, requier a lot of micro to remain effective, you need to constantly stutter step to keep zealots of your back and thus they still remain interesting. Roaches on the other hand, you just run them in as close as possible from all angles and then let them shoot.
Roach could be more interesting in smaller groups, where burrow heal could allow them to do what blink stalkers do. I've always thought this was an untapped potential the unit had, but the risk/reward of that action simply diminishes as the number of roaches, and number of enemy units, goes up.
Zone Control I think we all agree (Blizzard included), that zone control is in a poor state right now, that is why they are giving terrans the shredder and zergs the swarm host. Again zone control =/= micro reducing abilities. If you want you can still perform a frontal attack on the enemy siege line, but you need a bit more pre-battle preparation as well as in more in battle micro to succeed, while micro reducing abilities is all about preparation and very little about in battle micro.
Also the siege line not only forces you to play better against it if you want to go the frontal assault approach, it also opens up more tactical options around the map, perhaps you'd prefer to circumvent the fortified position all together using drops, run bys, and Nydus/warp ins.
Mech vs Toss Now the part where you said that, you'd expect to see mech more popular vs Protoss, is the point where I started to think you actually don't play the game and have no clue what you are talking about. Yes tanks rape Stalkers, but everything else from Toss rapes tanks.
Zealots take an amazing 5 hits to kill, and they can charge into a tank line and cause havoc. Immortals can tank 10 hits before their shields even go down. Archons, can eat an amazing 11 hits before they die as well. Void Rays rape tanks without even taking damage from them, Phoenixes graviton beam to make tanks useless etc.
The support tanks have right now is bad too. Helions late game can't absorb damage for the tanks well enough, they just flat out die from the chargelots and/or archons. Thors don't fare any better, they get shredded by zealots and flat out obliterated by immortals.
Terran mech is also so gas intensive you will be hard pressed to have enough for ghosts and EMP, or heck even vikings if the enemy decides to go mass air.
Left compleatly alone the meta-game for Mech vs Protoss will never evolve, because there is no ground on which you can build it. In HoTS it might change since battle helions can absorb more hits and deal better damage with the cone attack. Warhounds are also going to be cheaper and more massable than thors so mech will be relatively ok vs air. But it will still suffer heavily against archons and immortals.
So my conclusion is that, you didn't trully understand the points the OP was putting forth and thus failed to realize how right he really is. Yes SC2 is not BW, but it is SC, its in the same universe with the same characters, same story and lots of units that have made a comeback in some form or another. Even Dustin Browder and other devs have said that, to build the future you need to build upon the past.
I believe there are still valuable lessons to be learned from BW, its our job to have an open mind and recognize these important lessons.
Also, I don't think its the pathfinding and the tendancy for units to ball that is a problem. In a way it works kind of like the pathfinding in BW. Because units tend to ball up, you want to actively manage your units to keep them spread, in a line or a concave. In battle if you get a group of units stormed you split them or move them etc. You split your ghosts, sentries, infestors and HT so they don't all get neutralized in one fell swoop.
In this regard I think pathfinding in SC2 is not as bad.
The real underlying problem with balls is, the ese with which they spring up, and I'll try and touch upon that in a future article of my own.
I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen:
You need to look at a few fundamental differences between the A.I. of BW with all its bugs, and the SC2 A.I. which has its own problems. The best news is that the SC2 A.I. can still be improved upon to achieve some higher skill ceilings with units that are controlled well. With that being said though, let me sum up some differences which are very easy to overlook or just not know about.
If you have a battle in Brood War, each individual unit has a baseline a.i. In this old game the a.i. had some bugs, but these bugs created opportunities for a better player to increase the value of each unit through good control. A good example would be mutalisks against scourge. Scourge was a fast flying unit, that would suicide and explode on other air units to kill them. Now a lesser player would perhaps be able to get a shot off with hold position micro and kill 1 or 2 scourge with any luck, but then lose his mutalisks to the remaining scourge.
A mediocre player could use patrol commands moving in a certain degree, away from the scourge, to sometimes dodge a scourge and get a free shot off at the same time.
A great player (Jaedong), would be able to use Patrol micro to first patrol away from a scourge in a certain angle, immediately issue another command to another angle upward, and then patrol command behind scourge to completely dodge the scourge, and hit them at the same time. The mutalisks would never get hit and just survive.
This means that a mutalisk can dramatically increase in value through very precise control, partly caused due to old and bugged A.I.
Now let's go to Starcraft 2 shall we, and let's take Phoenix vs Mutalisk as an example. The Phoenix is faster than the mutalisk, and shoots automatically while moving. This would allow for some good kiting micro you'd think. I will explain how that is impossible due to the nature of SC2 A.I.
If a pack of mutalisk chases you and you fly away from them, kiting, you will get further and further away from the muta pack. This means you have to fly closer to them again to resume kiting and damaging these mutalisks. The player using the mutalisk can abuse this fact by turning around, forcing you to follow them to do damage, and then when you get closer they turn around randomly and get some good shots off at you.
In BW, with good control, you can prevent this, but here is the deal with SC2 A.I. Air units always glide a little bit in the same direction as their attack, this is extremely problematic when it comes to phoenix, because it's a feature of the A.I. that prevents air unit stacking (viking flower) and is also caused because of the *shoot* animation. When the Phoenix fires his attack, he will glide until the animation finishes.
So when you want to outperform mutalisks, you'd want to move in, get a shot and turn back immediately to avoid taking damage from the mutalisk to increase the value of your Phoenixes. But in SC2, you get punished for trying to do so. When you move in and your Phoenixes shoot, you click them away from the mutalisks, but they all glide for a short amount of time. In this time, a mutalisk pack can gain exactly enough ground to hit your Phoenixes, and actually do more damage than you did if the pack is at a medium size. In this case you actually decrease the value of your units if you try to micro more than just moving away.
Another good example is the Stalker. In BW, you could kite marines with dragoons because their attack was instant. You could shoot and move away in time just before the marine could get in range to hit you once. In Starcraft 2, Stalkers have 1 more range than marines. You would think you would be able to kite marines then, right? Sorry to dissapoint you, but this is not the case, due to the following:
In Starcraft 2, some units can fire instantly in every angle, 360 degrees around them. The marine is one of these units, which makes stutterstep what it is today, while that's actually one of the easiest micro moves to learn. Some units, have to turn around and face the target before they shoot, and some even have an attack animation that has to finish. Stalkers are one of these units.
The scenario will be the following, you move and see a marine pack heading your way. You start using attack move toward them, and move away from them right when the Stalkers fire their shots. Unfortunately, the Stalkers have to turn to face the location that you issued the move command in. Now the marines get to fire their shots and do some good damage to your stalkers. Your micro now makes Stalkers slightly better against marines (10% approx), where it could have been much more. Due to the way the A.I. and attack animations work in SC2 (this is partially due to 3D), you lose all these possibilities to increase your unit value and turn battles around with less.
Lastly we have units such as the Marauder, Infestor, Sentry, Mothership. What do these units have in common? Answer: They all prevent the other player from microing their units by restricting or halting their movement.
The Marauder gets concussive shells for a measly 50/50 in cost. Now they can do even half-assed stutterstep and kite pretty much everything except speedlings. So the Terran player has to only do a bit of stutterstep, to have vastly more efficient units than you (think of roach vs marauder, roaches cannot ever connect).
The Infestors fungal most of your army, and the Zerg proceeds to surround you and destroy you. What can you do about it in the battle? Exactly, nothing at all. Pre battle you can spread your units and continue to split them a bit while in battle but these are things you could do in BW as well. But what you did not have in BW were spells and abilities that prevented movement in such a way that it became detrimental to the opposing player. Fungal does damage and roots units, force fields completely block movement in an area, concussive shells snare you for 0% extra effort.
In BW you had Stasis, that could freeze units in an area, and do aoe unit nullifying you say? Well due to the nature of BW, the armies were much more spread out, and larger. Stasis and maelstrom were the only spells that could do an aoe lockdown, but the trick was that if you damaged a stasised unit, it would come out of it. Maelstrom did root biological units only (which makes it very niche right off the bat), but did no damage to them. In order to get maelstrom, you had to research a completely different tree of spells, for a unit that was completely niche for fighting massive bio armies. You would only see Dark Archons in PvZ late game.
But again, this wasnt as powerful because BW had more spread out armies, and because of the nature of micro possibilities to increase unit value + some A.I. bugs, there were fights all over the map instead of one big battle, because this further increased your efficiency, and you could hold against vastly bigger armies due to the micro possibilities + highground advantages (low to highground attacks only had a 70% chance to hit in BW).
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
Yeah, and we all know how well it works when a million people get a vote on how something has to be designed
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
Blizzard has said the balancing the AOEs has been the hardest part of SC2, due to the way the pathing works and how units love to clump. Changing the unit size might reset that process that has taken nearly a year and I don't Blizzard is ready to do that. Even if there was some way to command the units to an move to an area rather than a single point, it would do wonders to correct the issue.
But I think Blizzard had a solid idea when SC2 started out. Make sure the basic units are useful for the entire game. If you look at the current meta game, all three races use their most basic up unit the end game. Zealots are even being used in PvZ, which would have been unheard of 6 months ago. The biggest issue with Blizzards design is that the later tier units are either hit or miss. When they initially designed the immortal, they made it the same cost as 2 stalkers with the idea that it would be a choice between solid ground combat or something quick that could shoot air. The flaw with this is that you cannot make a unit that does something that another unit does, only slightly better. If the "inferior" is lower in the tech tree and requires less investment, there are few reasons to build the "superior" unit. I would love to build immortals, but stalkers are just better. They last longer, are faster, easier to macro up and are less likely to be focused down. Also, blink is pretty awesome.
Look at the "tier 3". All of them cost a mint to build and take forever to build. But the ones that are in almost every game have the same traits, long range and solid damage. The colossi, brood lord, ghost and high templar are all trash on their own, but when supported are amazing. The tier three units that we do not see, carrier, thor(to a small extent, they do kill mutas) and battle cruiser fail to add anything to the standing army or provide anything useful on their own. So they are relegated to being used for all ins and really weird builds. What we are left with are units that are effective, but only effective at supporting the Death Ball.
HotS seems to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Improve stargate play for Protoss, AOEs that punish clumping for Zerg and more robust mech play for Terran. I think there will still be a death ball in a post WoL world. After all, at some point there needs to be a massive battle, but maybe it will be smaller and will not decide the game based on a few well placed AOEs.
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
Blizzard has said the balancing the AOEs has been the hardest part of SC2, due to the way the pathing works and how units love to clump. Changing the unit size might reset that process that has taken nearly a year and I don't Blizzard is ready to do that. Even if there was some way to command the units to an move to an area rather than a single point, it would do wonders to correct the issue.
But I think Blizzard had a solid idea when SC2 started out. Make sure the basic units are useful for the entire game. If you look at the current meta game, all three races use their most basic up unit the end game. Zealots are even being used in PvZ, which would have been unheard of 6 months ago. The biggest issue with Blizzards design is that the later tier units are either hit or miss. When they initially designed the immortal, they made it the same cost as 2 stalkers with the idea that it would be a choice between solid ground combat or something quick that could shoot air. The flaw with this is that you cannot make a unit that does something that another unit does, only slightly better. If the "inferior" is lower in the tech tree and requires less investment, there are few reasons to build the "superior" unit. I would love to build immortals, but stalkers are just better. They last longer, are faster, easier to macro up and are less likely to be focused down. Also, blink is pretty awesome.
Look at the "tier 3". All of them cost a mint to build and take forever to build. But the ones that are in almost every game have the same traits, long range and solid damage. The colossi, brood lord, ghost and high templar are all trash on their own, but when supported are amazing. The tier three units that we do not see, carrier, thor(to a small extent, they do kill mutas) and battle cruiser fail to add anything to the standing army or provide anything useful on their own. So they are relegated to being used for all ins and really weird builds. What we are left with are units that are effective, but only effective at supporting the Death Ball.
HotS seems to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Improve stargate play for Protoss, AOEs that punish clumping for Zerg and more robust mech play for Terran. I think there will still be a death ball in a post WoL world. After all, at some point there needs to be a massive battle, but maybe it will be smaller and will not decide the game based on a few well placed AOEs.
The nerfs to AOE have turned this game from a game about being intelligent with your units to just having more. Even colossi got hit hard with the nerfbat (they used to 1-shot marines, making them a viable tool for gaining early map control and stopping early timing attacks). Blizzard went the absolute wrong direction with AOE. Instead of making AOE less mobile and more about area control, they just decided to nerf it and make it fit in better with the mobile army. Imagine if tanks did 2x as much damage as they do now, or if storm was the old size (like 3x bigger or something) with BW damage (112?). These giant clumped armies would melt in seconds, and so you'd have to respect those units. If more AOE units functioned like that, we'd have ourselves a much better game that was more about gaining map control and utilizing intelligent placement of powerful units than just running around with huge armies hoping to get a good engagement.
And I don't mean zerg is too strong, or terran is too strong, though I do think Terran has too many options, but that's another story.
What I mean specifically is that a race's tech trees aren't balanced with themselves. No attention is being paid to the fact that immortals are totally useless most of the time. What they do is done by the Colossus, better in most cases. Same goes for Carriers, Thors, Battlecruisers, Ultras, Ravens, Reapers (Lesser extent), supply calldowns, hydras, nydus canal, etc etc.
That would be forgivable if it were a few choice units that just didn't find their niche...But many of those units are key units.
The big boys, Carriers, BCs, Thors and Ultras can literally lose you a game if you switch into them before you've won because they're not balanced versus what else you can have. Ultras don't make more sense than roaches and lings in most cases. Carriers almost never make sense because Colossus usually precede them. While other units like Reaper and Hydra have difficulty finding a place because they cause you to go out of your way to get something only marginally better than an alternative at huge cost.
Almost universally, a hydra is a disadvantage. Why? If you're attacking ground units, 2 roaches cost a few more minerals and supply, and do more DPS, have more health, move faster, can move while burrowed, regenerate while burrowed, and are armored.
If you're fighting air, a muta does a bit less damage for a bit more gas, but moves at almost double the speed of a hydra with 50% more HP, doesn't require a range upgrade to become effective, and is air (Thus protecting it from many of the hydra's enemies)
What's more is the hydra/muta decision comes at a time when the hydra does not fit into the zerg army. The zerg army up to this point is very quick. Until now, zerglings and banelings have likely given you map control, or perhaps roaches with speed. Then the zerg player is presented a choice. Slow moving hydras that require creep for their effectiveness, thus eliminating the control you gianed early? Or mutas, which typically (unless hard countered) solidfy your map control and allow you to dominate.
In HOTS, less attention needs to be paid to the interaction of units with those in other factions, and more needs to be paid to the interaction of units and player choices within a faction.
On January 16 2012 23:10 marvellosity wrote: It seems two of the primary reasons people are citing for less micro in SC2 in this thread are the fact that units ball up more and they behave the way they should/are told to.
Whether the micro BW required because of terrible pathing/AI was exciting or not, it seems very strange to me to criticise SC2 for having what is generally excellent AI and proper, correct pathfinding (actually a huge success compared to many RTS!).
Saying dragoons benefit tonnes from micro is all well and good, but only because of inherent flaws in the game itself.
If you're going to criticise SC2, PLEASE do so in the context of its extremely high-standard AI and pathing, taking that as a base and going from there. Moaning at SC2 because its units behave as they should (yikes!) is just silly imo.
True. There is exactly 0.0% chance Blizzard are going to purposely screw up the pathfinding and introduce glitches to the game in order to 'fix it'. The pathfinding and response units are a given. Tweaks like increasing unit collision size might be possible, still, but would constitute a massive balance change that could quite possibly throw the competitive scene on its rear end for a long time.
Introducing these tweaks in HotS might be possible, but at the same time I can't imagine Blizzard would want to compromise the launch of their new expansion/installment by making huge untested balance changes. Adoption of HotS is pretty darn important to them.
The pro scene won't switch to HotS until it's had a good amount of time to get balanced and dust settles. While the pathfinding is here to stay (and notice how I didn't ever talk about that, because I don't think it's the source of the problem), they can do a lot to change the way units work in formation and spread out. Hell, they can simply make a lot of units way bigger than they were and that'd do wonders on its own.
Blizzard has said the balancing the AOEs has been the hardest part of SC2, due to the way the pathing works and how units love to clump. Changing the unit size might reset that process that has taken nearly a year and I don't Blizzard is ready to do that. Even if there was some way to command the units to an move to an area rather than a single point, it would do wonders to correct the issue.
But I think Blizzard had a solid idea when SC2 started out. Make sure the basic units are useful for the entire game. If you look at the current meta game, all three races use their most basic up unit the end game. Zealots are even being used in PvZ, which would have been unheard of 6 months ago. The biggest issue with Blizzards design is that the later tier units are either hit or miss. When they initially designed the immortal, they made it the same cost as 2 stalkers with the idea that it would be a choice between solid ground combat or something quick that could shoot air. The flaw with this is that you cannot make a unit that does something that another unit does, only slightly better. If the "inferior" is lower in the tech tree and requires less investment, there are few reasons to build the "superior" unit. I would love to build immortals, but stalkers are just better. They last longer, are faster, easier to macro up and are less likely to be focused down. Also, blink is pretty awesome.
Look at the "tier 3". All of them cost a mint to build and take forever to build. But the ones that are in almost every game have the same traits, long range and solid damage. The colossi, brood lord, ghost and high templar are all trash on their own, but when supported are amazing. The tier three units that we do not see, carrier, thor(to a small extent, they do kill mutas) and battle cruiser fail to add anything to the standing army or provide anything useful on their own. So they are relegated to being used for all ins and really weird builds. What we are left with are units that are effective, but only effective at supporting the Death Ball.
HotS seems to have some light at the end of the tunnel. Improve stargate play for Protoss, AOEs that punish clumping for Zerg and more robust mech play for Terran. I think there will still be a death ball in a post WoL world. After all, at some point there needs to be a massive battle, but maybe it will be smaller and will not decide the game based on a few well placed AOEs.
The nerfs to AOE have turned this game from a game about being intelligent with your units to just having more. Even colossi got hit hard with the nerfbat (they used to 1-shot marines, making them a viable tool for gaining early map control and stopping early timing attacks). Blizzard went the absolute wrong direction with AOE. Instead of making AOE less mobile and more about area control, they just decided to nerf it and make it fit in better with the mobile army. Imagine if tanks did 2x as much damage as they do now, or if storm was the old size (like 3x bigger or something) with BW damage (112?). These giant clumped armies would melt in seconds, and so you'd have to respect those units. If more AOE units functioned like that, we'd have ourselves a much better game that was more about gaining map control and utilizing intelligent placement of powerful units than just running around with huge armies hoping to get a good engagement.
I agree in principle that reliable ways to lock down an area would be the best for the game. I don't like the idea of more damage, however. SC2 is already a game of very high DPS units dominating the field and the idea of even more powerful AOEs makes me think there will just more more dumb all-ins and coin flips. There needs to be something in the middle of the road, beyond the siege tank and storm. The shredder and swarm host in HotS gives me hope, since their roles are so limited. Also the recall being moved to the nexus(and hopefully made smaller) may remove some of the positioning/engagement wars as well. It will likely make cannons stronger if they can be backed up by a small force quickly.
There are more ways to punish a player for being over aggressive than just ramping up the damage.
what a great and refreshing read. i agree with a lot of the points you made and you articulated it very well. excellent, look forward to more of your posts
On January 16 2012 19:34 Excludos wrote: I agree with most of what you said. However on the Phoenix you are dead wrong. It may seem like "OMG this unit can now shoot while moving. This lowers micro!", however what you fail to see is that phoenixes are extremely fast, low durability, only AA and not really that great amount of damage. This means that if you want to have any use out of your phoenixes whatsoever, you need to micro them constantly. They always needs to move around. If you stop your phoenixes and let the muta ball, hydras, or infestors, catch up, they are all going to die instantly. This is also, ironically, why most people simply don't use the. They just need to much attention to be worth their cost.
I'm not saying that the phoenix itself is a bad unit. I think I wrote that poorly cause people are confused what I mean by move-shoot mechanic. I'm saying that having units attack anything in range by default is a REALLY bad mechanic. It would be bad on ANY unit. It reduces the decision making of when to take a shot vs when to move. It also was a pathetic attempt at recreating the moving shot from BW (which is LITERALLY what we as a community were asking for) and the fact that the community just laid down and said, "eh, we give up, close enough" is very saddening. Blizzard's dev team clearly has no idea what the heck high level BW even consisted of, which is why the game looks like it was designed by a bunch of kids with ADD.
You make a pretty bold claim without any solid evidence or reasoning to back it up. You say it's a really bad mechanic but you don't give reasons why. Oh wait! It reduces the decision making on when to move and shoot you say, according to you this is bad game design. I agree that it would be terrible on pretty much any OTHER unit, but from the way the phoenix has been designed I really, strongly disagree.
You have provided no justification for why it is a bad mechanic, just because you say it is bad does not make it so. If you can give some solid examples prove that the move shoot mechanic, used by the Phoenix, is bad for the game, with respect to the rest of the game, (like you did with the Juggernaught in the Chess example) then you might have an argument, but right now your argument is essentially nothing.
You talk about removing decision making on what you shoot at, as though this is unique too the Phoenix just because they do it while moving. You know what other units make these decisions? Every other unit while not moving! If you don't believe me try it out some time. By your logic units should not do this as it takes decisions away from the player. Perhaps we should remove this feature and all units will behave like workers until told to attack since that is quite clearly superior design right?
The capacity to move and shoot does NOT remove decision making, it just allows a unit to do damage without stopping, you must still make the decisions where to position your units and what to target fire, just like EVERY other unit.
What the phoenix does is essentially a streamlined version of the stutter step, except of course much easier to perform and doesn't require stopping. It is an advantage that the Phoenix has to make up for it's fragility and limited air to ground potential. In this sense I feel that Blizzard has done a great job in giving this mechanic to the one unit that suits it's style yet it is not easily exploitable. I mean what can extra do you really get out of it? A few potshots at Mutas as you fly away from them, bruising of some medivacs while marines tear your Phoenix apart or, dancing around making them difficult to target. Probably the strongest bonus I would say it gives is the ability to keep moving while lifting ground units, which is actually quite micro intensive, and involves more cognitive thinking and decision making than A-moving a bunch of Mutas to kill off some ground units. Do you really think that this situation would be improved by forcing the Phoenix user to stutter step at the same time? Since you prefer Brood War and mechanically demanging micro I am going to assume your answer would be yes, but I sure don't and a difference in opinion does not make bad game design.
To be totally honest I think the problem you have with the move shoot mechanic is that it is easier than stutter stepping and kiting, and you feel that things should be harder to pull off mechanically. When it comes down to it though that is a matter of opinion not game design and I hope you don't take it personally, but I am going to go with my own opinion on this one.
In both cases you can probably skip to the 5 minute mark to where the action begins. You have pretty similar harassment. An air harassment build designed to take out workers and overlords.
But look at the very crisp and precise control that BW game engine allowed. Vs the gliding movement of phoenix combined with backwards moving shot that in comparison looks pretty sloppy and really require a small amount of control in comparison.
Now the real kicker is almost every unit in BW had that level of control potential. Not every unit scaled so well to get such impressive results, but the game engine allowed for very precise movements.
WoW, I must admit, that wraith micro looked pro, I definetly won't look at pheonixes the same way again.
I thought the attacking while moving of pheonix was justified by the fact they have really short range but super high speed, so its hard to properly control them, but seeing that wraith micro actually put things into perspective. There really should be no reason for units to have an auto-attack while moving, it detracts so much skill potential skill from a unit.
On January 17 2012 18:50 Falling wrote: @Myddraal The only way I can think is to actually show you the difference between what people where hoping Blizzard would put in vs what we got.
In both cases you can probably skip to the 5 minute mark to where the action begins. You have pretty similar harassment. An air harassment build designed to take out workers and overlords.
But look at the very crisp and precise control that BW game engine allowed. Vs the gliding movement of phoenix combined with backwards moving shot that in comparison looks pretty sloppy and really require a small amount of control in comparison.
Now the real kicker is almost every unit in BW had that level of control potential. Not every unit scaled so well to get such impressive results, but the game engine allowed for very precise movements.
I remember seeing that game live. Baby's wraith control is absolutely sick. He's one of my favorite terrans for a reason.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
On January 17 2012 22:31 Vicarios wrote: I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
Just wait....
This is more or less what i was thinking myself. The game will get much harder and complete with each expansion, and after Legacy of the void will be out and the player base is set up, Blizzard will care less about "making the game easier to approach new players". But even if this is true, and they have a big masterplan already, thay have to hide it .
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
On January 17 2012 22:31 Vicarios wrote: I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
Just wait....
This is more or less what i was thinking myself. The game will get much harder and complete with each expansion, and after Legacy of the void will be out and the player base is set up, Blizzard will care less about "making the game easier to approach new players". But even if this is true, and they have a big masterplan already, thay have to hide it .
I'm pretty sure if you look at WoW they only made things stupider and easier as time went on. These guys don't have a clue what they're doing and are completely lost ever since the SC/D2 devs left.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It doesn't reward melee units. Edit: The guy above was faster. :o
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
You dont get it. Its obvious, that you are a terran player, who is disregarding melee units.
What I was trying to say, is the following: range bonus/penalty only affects ranged units, and therefor is more terran specific, since they have no melee units. It also means, that terrans gain more through holding high ground, than the other races.
It's as simple as this: less than 100% of the units are ranged. But exactly 100% of the units have armor/profit from more armor or guardian shield'esque manipulation.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
On January 17 2012 22:31 Vicarios wrote: I'm sure Blizz has a somwhat hidden Masatreplan. They'll remove units ( like Thor ) step by step. Things will get harder, but first u need the playerbase. And realisticly, which 12 year old would play BW stile units? Don't cry, u get less "skillfullness" but a bigger esport, which will lead in the end to more competition ( also international, not just some freaks on an island + nerds in the world ).
Just wait....
This is more or less what i was thinking myself. The game will get much harder and complete with each expansion, and after Legacy of the void will be out and the player base is set up, Blizzard will care less about "making the game easier to approach new players". But even if this is true, and they have a big masterplan already, thay have to hide it .
I'm pretty sure if you look at WoW they only made things stupider and easier as time went on. These guys don't have a clue what they're doing and are completely lost ever since the SC/D2 devs left.
Well with how the WOW's monthly fee system works, they can't make the game harder, or they will lose players/money. This won't be the case with SC2 after LOTV is out for some time. I just hope i'm right, but still won't stop supporting the ideas behind this thread.
On January 17 2012 00:32 SoulWager wrote: I think one of the biggest potential ways to promote positional play in sc2 is to make high ground more meaningful than "have vision" or "don't have vision."
Yep, im talking about brood war's vision system, where units on low ground would miss shots when shooting uphill. Yes, SC2 is a different game, but there were basic things in BW that just worked, and didn't need to be changed. And allowed the map designers to give the players something important to fight for, take RoV for example, where the whole middle area was so important to control, because it a huge hill with both players at the bottom, or blue storm, where high ground advantage was a key component of one of the best map specific TvT builds I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYthCrf2CM0
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
Range penalty for shooting up?
Profits siege tank, BL and colossus positions disproportionally, since they already have great rang. So its even harder to bust them. And does not profit melee compositions nearly as well.
I think that got cut out because the broodwar scene kept complaining about random elements in WC3 and therefore blizzard got rid of anything that is chance based.
If Blizzard actually listened to the BW scene, then SC2 would have come out different.
I like this! Make high ground give extra 1 or 2 armor (similar to guardian shield), and I think it would be very good.
No, that is basically meaningless for high damage units. A range bonus/penalty system for different cliff heights is far superior to that.
Taking good position isnt something you do once you tech to AoE units. Just like in BW, high ground advantage should be there from the start, it should reward you regardless of the units you have.
Thats why additional armor is better than your proposal.
I don't even remotely understand what you're saying. Range bonus rewards all units at all stages of the game.
It does not. If you are playing against a meele heavy opponent, it does nothing.
What? You can hit them sooner.
Armor bonus (AND the only BW %to miss) don't matter vs melee because they're always at the same cliff height as you if they're engaging.
It matters if you are holding a ramp with melee units against ranged units or possibly even other melee units.
Range penalty for shooting up?
the +1 armor for melee units so they can hold a ramp little bit better against ranged units.
On January 17 2012 23:16 PureBalls wrote: Profits siege tank, BL and colossus positions disproportionally, since they already have great rang. So its even harder to bust them. And does not profit melee compositions nearly as well.
I don't believe it would affect flying units like broodlords, since cliff issues are not concern to flying units.
On January 16 2012 13:00 Roe wrote: I disagree with you on the no zone control. Forcefield fits that role exactly. PDD gives you zone control as well. And in the expansion we will see any lacking in this field be helped out by shredder, viper, etc. Maybe PDD needs to be stronger somehow, because it's sort of linear right now. You put it down, it absorbs a certain amount of hits, then needs to recharge slowly.
Its not really zone control if its only available for a very short time.
I can literally fortify a position forever with enough tanks/mines/turrets/depots. It does require a big investment though and a lot of precious time and effort, its like building a castle.
PDD/Forcefield is a relatively small investment but the scale at which you can control a zone is also much less.
You can do essentially the exact same thing in SC2, have you not watched MVP play split map against Zerg?
That's one match up though, and split-map is different to map control.
E.g I can split the map vs Toss using MMM by being mobile and scanning the Toss army movement. Map control is having 2 lurkers above a ramp and infinite bio units dying trying to get up it.
Every matchup except ZvZ allows for powerful zone control with Reavers, Lurkers, Mines, and Siege Tanks.
There are many matchups which doesn't allow for map control causing ball vs ball play. E.g In SC2 you cannot play mech vs Protoss and split the map.
First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
nice post, but there are plenty of points i'd argue.. anyway I want to ask you this.. burrowed roaches do not force detection? really? I'm not sure how you come up with that conclusion. burrowed roaches kill a protoss army w/o observers pretty easily and force the protoss to be defensive UNTILL he has detection..
I agree on the problem of zone control, but you critize there are too many ways to kill a siege tank.. if there wasn't siege tanks would rape ANYTHING on the ground..
I appreciate the effort you put into this post, but I feel that, at many points, you simply critize stuff that many "lower" skilled players cannot overcome..
On January 19 2012 00:20 jellyjello wrote: First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
are you seriously critizing the aspect of realism in a Fantasy-RTS-Game? You're kidding right?
On January 19 2012 02:51 JayIsImbA wrote: nice post, but there are plenty of points i'd argue.. anyway I want to ask you this.. burrowed roaches do not force detection? really? I'm not sure how you come up with that conclusion. burrowed roaches kill a protoss army w/o observers pretty easily and force the protoss to be defensive UNTILL he has detection..
I agree on the problem of zone control, but you critize there are too many ways to kill a siege tank.. if there wasn't siege tanks would rape ANYTHING on the ground..
I appreciate the effort you put into this post, but I feel that, at many points, you simply critize stuff that many "lower" skilled players cannot overcome.
Didn't seem to be a problem in BW.
What they really need to do is remove the Tank AI, Blizzard just has to accept that its really bad for the game, something they've been unwilling to do since people mentioned the Thor was a terrible idea in Alpha.
I haven't seen it mentioned here, but wouldn't it be possible to implement unit formations such as the ones from Age of Empires II? It could fix the ball-only issue and allow area of effect attacks to be buffed further without having to dumb down the pathing system.
On another topic, I could imagine Blizzard holding some of the necessary fixes until LotV. I mean, they could easily have made a complete game in WoL but that woudn't have fitted in the three expansion model. In order to give people reasons to buy expansions, they must be keeping some of the best changes for later.
On January 19 2012 10:21 javert wrote: I haven't seen it mentioned here, but wouldn't it be possible to implement unit formations such as the ones from Age of Empires II? It could fix the ball-only issue and allow area of effect attacks to be buffed further without having to dumb down the pathing system.
On another topic, I could imagine Blizzard holding some of the necessary fixes until LotV. I mean, they could easily have made a complete game in WoL but that woudn't have fitted in the three expansion model. In order to give people reasons to buy expansions, they must be keeping some of the best changes for later.
Myth: The SC2 pathing system is good. Truth: No it is terrible, it is as dumbed down as dumbed down gets.
Go look at Company of Heroes or many other games where the units move like a real army (spread out with no formation) while still having perfect pathing. Battles also last a long time, which is something SC2 really needs to work on.
Fixed formations are a bad idea, why? Because everyone would choose ball anyway.
in terms of unit design, I think blizzard made a big mistake trying to balance the game too much.
People tend to blame blizzard for trying to make units fun and cool instead on focusing on making them balanced, but I think this is very wrong. I think blizzard was completely right in making units cool and fun and interesting FIRST, and THEN much later, focusing on balance. Their mistake was not going all the way. Maybe they got scared.
As OP stated, SO many good ideas were trashed, and the only reason one can think of is balance. This was all done before beta. Think about BW. If there had been any unit in SC2 with as much power as some of the units in BW, it would have been nerfed immediately because it didn't seem balanced. Yet that's one of the reasons BW is so interesting, because all races had some things that were just extremely powerful. Battles could be turned due to very powerful abilities. All 3 races had things one could say was imbalanced, but yet the game was eventually balanced.
So many great ideas completely scrapped. The best way to have handled SC2 imo would have been to put in a whole bunch of interesting powerful fun units for each race, forget balance, and just let the players balance it through learning how to deal with things. Then after a good long while has passed, address things that are too broken. But what blizzard did, was preemptively scrap/nerf all things with potential to be OP, in order to achieve balance faster. Balance isn't as important as some of you might think. Blizzard didn't really balance BW as much as the players balanced it themselves.
List of good units/ideas off the top of my head that Blizzard scrapped/nerfed:
Static defense movement: Initially a protoss ability, changed to zerg, but nerfed so that it takes a long time to burrow down. Immortal: Used to be a cool unit that took very little damage from high damage attacks because they activated his shield. But low damage attacks would bypass the shield and take him down much faster. Now it's just a unit that can't take more than a certain amount of damage. Fungal Infestation: Used to be a great ability from the infestor, that would shoot some sort of parasite at an enemy infantry unit(don't know what units it worked on aside from that), and then that unit would, after a few seconds, explode and kill other units within a certain radius. The player would have to micro to separate the infested unit from the others before it was too late. The Roach: as mentioned in OP. Hunter Seeker Missile: Used to be a threat. Thor: used to be built by scv like a building, but now it comes out of a building that is smaller then the unit. Apparently it was too OP for scvs to be able to build it. Baneling: Used to be a OMG watch out for that baneling, and they weren't easy to kill. It was changed to SO MANY BANELINGS. I remember when beta started I snuck a zergling into my enemy base and morphed it into a baneling. Giggling I moved him to the mineral line and made him blow up. Yeah, nothing happened...
The baneling change is an example of how they went from making a unit more expensive but deadlier, into making it less expensive but weaker. Expensive but deadly is far more interesting than high numbers. The reaver was good because it took 1 scarab to unleash hell, potentially. This creates excitement. Having 3 deadly banelings to watch out for is more exciting than having 10 much weaker banelings for instance.
Anyways, writing too much, but the point is that the best way to have gone about balancing the game while still keeping it really interesting would have been to put in every great, interesting, fun unit/ability into the game, and then letting the players balance it in beta. NOT nerfing/scrapping all good, interesting ideas beforehand for the sake of having a more balanced beta. That's how I see it at least. There is a lot of hope though, since there are still two expansions left, so we'll see.
On January 19 2012 00:20 jellyjello wrote: First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
are you seriously critizing the aspect of realism in a Fantasy-RTS-Game? You're kidding right?
You are right. The hell with realism! Let's just make the marines fly and their rifles can fire unlimited nukes. After all, who really cares about the realism in RTS game?
he doesn't like them. Why? because they are something that BW doesn't have.
But he is going to give a bunch of reasons for it (which is pretty easy when talking about the mule) so that it sounds interesting. But then again, you can find a reason for everything in everygame, why it sucks from your point of view if you just think a little bit...
I just had a great idea. What about giving the Phoenix a 100/100 Upgrade that let's him actually transport the lifted units with a punishment to be slowed down like 33% movement speed. This could result in some great micro stuff. Now when thinking about it i see that some of the situations you'd use that ability would make it somewhat similar to the new zerg casting unit that can grab and pull enemy units.
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
On January 19 2012 00:20 jellyjello wrote: First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
are you seriously critizing the aspect of realism in a Fantasy-RTS-Game? You're kidding right?
You are right. The hell with realism! Let's just make the marines fly and their rifles can fire unlimited nukes. After all, who really cares about the realism in RTS game?
No, but it's almost unplayable if you'd take care of such things. What do you want, that colossi moving above your army actually deal damage to the units? that marines MUST stand side-by-side in order to NOT kill other marines? that's just unplayable, sorry mate that just wouldn't work, not in a fast paced RTS.
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
It's quite the other way round. The OP bends the reality so that his points sound true... If the OP actually focused on what opportunities blizzard let slip(he mentions it shortly, especially with roaches, but there is a lot more...) I could agree a lot with him. But the fact that he talks about unit design by comparing everything to broodwar and doesn't mention stuff like: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers -) cutting of the scout which would have been a completly skillless unit in SC2 -) Viking as Mech Anti Air is a more interesting concept than the Goliath (in an SC2 enviroment, the goliath would have been just another 1a unit) -) pure bio should be just as viable as pure mech etc. etc... just shows that he actually didn't think things through or didn't want to mention any forms of improvments or at least calling them "attempts for improvements" if he doesn't think they turned out as such. It's a completly biased post and he doesn't even try to reason why blizzard might have thought it was a good idea to implement X or Y. It's exactly like nn42 said: "You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design."
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
It's quite the other way round. The OP bends the reality so that his points sound true... If the OP actually focused on what opportunities blizzard let slip(he mentions it shortly, especially with roaches, but there is a lot more...) I could agree a lot with him. But the fact that he talks about unit design by comparing everything to broodwar and doesn't mention stuff like: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers -) cutting of the scout which would have been a completly skillless unit in SC2 -) Viking as Mech Anti Air is a more interesting concept than the Goliath (in an SC2 enviroment, the goliath would have been just another 1a unit) -) pure bio should be just as viable as pure mech etc. etc... just shows that he actually didn't think things through or didn't want to mention any forms of improvments or at least calling them "attempts for improvements" if he doesn't think they turned out as such. It's a completly biased post and he doesn't even try to reason why blizzard might have thought it was a good idea to implement X or Y. It's exactly like nn42 said: "You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design."
What are you trying to say, i cant really understand your points. Reword your arguments because i dont know what are you comparing to what.
For example: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers So you mean that IF dragoon appeared in sc2 it would become deathball unit? But how its connected to OP and what we are talking about in this thread?
I don't agree with Big J and nn42, in fact I find that they missed the point of the thread, and the point the OP, way too many times, while selectively ignoring posts that seem to threaten their view or explaining what the OP said in a more accurate way.
Colossus Colossus is a borring units and there is nothing special about it. The decision when to switch into colossus tech and when to switch out is a choice that almost all other races have to some extent. The colossus carries very little weight too it, its almost as borring as the thor, except its not so clucky.
Roach I don't think Zerg has more APM tied into micro than Protoss or Terran, I do believe the decision to give them a bulk unit was plain wrong. Even stalkers, which are bulk are more entertaining to use and watch because of blink micro, hell even marauders are more entertaining because of stutter step kiting. The roach could have been on the same leaf with burrow micro being a core part of the roach, but now its mearly a cutsey move to.
Micro reductions Again, your argument has little weight behind it, almost every unit, or composition or spell requires an investment of time and resources. However, stim lets you're bio not only do more damage but also kite better, blink allows your stalkers to be more effective, EMP and Storm allows costs you micro but can give you a big advantage, etc.
However if you add FG and FF into the equation, suddenly one player invested a bit of APM, and the other one can't really do anything to react, he is blocked from investing his APM to save his army in any way shape or form without suffering critical damage.
So, what about this is good game design that all spells cost resources, time and APM to use, but there are some spells that simply block another player from doing anything?
There is nothing good about spells like that, when you see a FG land on a group of marines, you know for sure they are dead. All excitement and tension dies the moment the fungal hits. Once FF is placed to cut the army in half you know the other player is in huge trouble because he will most likely have his army killed in bits and pieces and never be able to recover by the time sentries run out of energy.
FF So, instead of buffing the Protoss early game units, like Stalkers, Zealots, they prefer to leave them weak and apply a band-aid fix? I agree with you perfectly that sentries are needed as part of the GW army now, or it just falls on its side and dies, but this was the result of a choice. Either nerf FF, GW and Colossus and buff the GW armies or, keep Colossus, FF and WG the way it is and let the GW army scale like shit and be uterly useless without them.
So, do you really prefer Toss to be reliant on timing attacks and deathball tactics just because GW units are so bad?
There where and are tons of solutions on how to fix this. - Make FF targetable with a fixed HP/Armor so they scale well in the begining and bad in the end. - Make regular Gateways produce units faster, but still allow WG to teleport to where ou have power but with a production speed penalty (this would even solve the current 4 Gate PvP issues). - And lastly nerf the damage of colossus so it doesn't destroy armies and maybe re-design it to be a more interesting unit.
What you basically said is that, FF have to be in the game or the protoss is screwed, without even trying to think up of ways to make the race work without them.
Zone Control Just the mere fact that Blizz is willing to add more zone control in HoTS should be an indicator to you that, yes atm zone control is a big problem and one that won't go away.
And Siege tanks aren't the best zone control in the game. They are good, but incredibly fragile and expensive. They also aren't as massable as you seem to believe. Even with mining of of 3 bases you can only build 1 tank and a half per factory per minute. And once you lose them, it will take ages for you to get them back, because you can't mine all that gas back fast enough to re-max.
I also am getting the impresion you know little about mech if you think no race can go against a full 200/200 mech army. Protoss can do it quite effectively with, zealots that require 5 shots to kill, immortals that require 12 shots to kill each, archons that require 11 shots to kill. Incidentaly helions, the meatshield of tanks is terrible against all those and once the helions are dead the tanks will sustain heavy damage and it is likely the Protoss will be able to re-max even on pure Zealot/Stalker and still wipe the floor with the terran before the terran can even come close to re-maxing.
And no, a army of tanks won't ever be able to stand toe to toe with an army of immortals and come out ahead, immortals are build purely to counter tanks.
Static Defense To solve the cheese problem, you can make these upgradable. Say, have the bunker stay the same, but implement anoter upgrade, or fold this into the bunker upgrade, to make them gain another 100 HP, -10 build time. Or an upgrade to give auto-turrets more HP and a 3rd attack etc. Cannons and Spines can recieve the same treatment. Nothing too over the top, but just allow them to scale up with the damage units can do late game.
And to break a fortified position, you use siege units, tanks, brood lords, colossus etc. Basically if you ever get a person into a position, where he just fortified himself into a corner than you can just take the map, build up a bank and infrastructure, and just slowly and meticulously push trough his defenses until you kill him. It is a very winnable position and not that hard to achieve, it just takes more time.
Conclusion While you did try to bring up your own arguments, I found them lacking substance and depth. And I get the feeling you are as anti-BW biassed as you claim the OP is pro BW biassed.
There wouldn't be as much "whine" if there wasn't some substance behind them, some of the shoody design choices have been spotted since beta, and the issues keep coming back because, they are probably more or less real. And heck, I could ignore them if, they didn't keep coming up month after month and, if even the pros didn't sometimes express their belief that the game is somehow less polished/broken.
he doesn't like them. Why? because they are something that BW doesn't have.
But he is going to give a bunch of reasons for it (which is pretty easy when talking about the mule) so that it sounds interesting. But then again, you can find a reason for everything in everygame, why it sucks from your point of view if you just think a little bit...
This should basically be the only post in this thread.
I think that is unfair and just putting words in the OPs mouth. I'm not sure if Blizz either wanted to speed up the game, or they wanted to somehow replicate the more difficult macro of BW without going for an interface that wants to kill you, but they did a great job with the macro abilities. You basically can save them up to a certain extent, but they reward the player paying the most atention and using them consistently. MULEs and Chrono you can save up, but it is generally better to use them as they are available for the consistency of production and resource income.
Larva inject is the only mechanic that truly punishes you for not timing it right.
Overall though, the macro abilities aren't bad at all, in fact we could probably even use some more. I'd prefer the SC2 interface with more active macro abilities than the BW interface that just makes you want to kill yourself. I'm quite sure that is the way forward and anyone can appreciate that as well.
I think one fact that every god-forsaken thread like this needs to drive home is this:
Brood War is a fluke in every single way. Koreans and others broke BW over their knees and keyboards, with hold lurkers, muta stacking, patrol micro. BW will never ever be repeated, in both a design and an ESPORTS sense. The confluence of circumstances that lead to the rise of BW in Korea will likely never be repeated. I can't see another ESPORTS movement like it coming for a long, long time.
In relation to SC2, I feel Blizzard have done a fairly mediocre job in designing it as an ESPORT.
Protoss especially is a horrifically badly designed race in terms of excitement and watch-ability with the focus on building a ball of nearly every single unit protoss has with insane DPS and spell-casters, leading to the now infamous one huge engagement into GG moments so prevalent in PvT especially. Smart-casting has removed all the excitement from spells; only forcefields really shine as a spell where we notice big gaps between the pros and the high level amateurs and it is an inherently flawed spell in itself, removing micro potential from the other player. Blink can make a case for itself but in the TvP matchup it ceases to be the intensive, constantly blinking away hurt stalkers, after early game (usually used as an allin also) This along with the warp-gate mechanic means protoss ground units are quite weak which leads to the need to ball up and rely on either storms or mass collo to provide DPS.
Warp Prism harass is either early game gimmicks (special tactics if you will) or warping in 6/8 chargelots in late game and A-moving them to a Terran expo, often to meet their doom at the hands of Planetary Fortresses. Charge in itself is simply an a-move ability with the Protoss player given no real room to micro zealots otherwise. Immortal micro used to consist of trying to get them to stop getting stuck behind stalkers but then Blizzard decided that was too taxing on players and buffed range. Reduced upgrade costs which encourages even more turtling from Protoss.
I won't go on and on but without some enormous changes (which Dustin Browder has come out and publicly said they won't make in his TL interview with Kennigit) Protoss matchups are going to be very very stale and nigh on un-watchable forever.
This is a great read. Very well written. I think that all too often these aspects are not realized by the general public and, more importantly, Blizzard themselves. I hope that this gets noticed by many people. I agree with every single point.
On January 20 2012 04:25 nn42 wrote: Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
You have clearly never tried mech in tvp. its bad. even if you have 20 tanks, zealots still kill you
"However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc," Marine tank is terrible in tvp. just amove zealots and collosi and you win.
Please actually try mech in tvp before commenting on how good it is.
On January 20 2012 04:25 nn42 wrote: Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
You have clearly never tried mech in tvp. its bad. even if you have 20 tanks, zealots still kill you
"However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc," Marine tank is terrible in tvp. just amove zealots and collosi and you win.
Please actually try mech in tvp before commenting on how good it is.
On January 20 2012 08:16 Destructicon wrote: I think that is unfair and just putting words in the OPs mouth. I'm not sure if Blizz either wanted to speed up the game, or they wanted to somehow replicate the more difficult macro of BW without going for an interface that wants to kill you, but they did a great job with the macro abilities. You basically can save them up to a certain extent, but they reward the player paying the most atention and using them consistently. MULEs and Chrono you can save up, but it is generally better to use them as they are available for the consistency of production and resource income.
Larva inject is the only mechanic that truly punishes you for not timing it right.
Overall though, the macro abilities aren't bad at all, in fact we could probably even use some more. I'd prefer the SC2 interface with more active macro abilities than the BW interface that just makes you want to kill yourself. I'm quite sure that is the way forward and anyone can appreciate that as well.
It would be unfair, if I hadn't read this in another thread (something about gold minerals) before:
On January 16 2012 01:36 EternaLLegacy wrote: The problem isn't just the gold mineral, it's the mule itself.
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
It's quite the other way round. The OP bends the reality so that his points sound true... If the OP actually focused on what opportunities blizzard let slip(he mentions it shortly, especially with roaches, but there is a lot more...) I could agree a lot with him. But the fact that he talks about unit design by comparing everything to broodwar and doesn't mention stuff like: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers -) cutting of the scout which would have been a completly skillless unit in SC2 -) Viking as Mech Anti Air is a more interesting concept than the Goliath (in an SC2 enviroment, the goliath would have been just another 1a unit) -) pure bio should be just as viable as pure mech etc. etc... just shows that he actually didn't think things through or didn't want to mention any forms of improvments or at least calling them "attempts for improvements" if he doesn't think they turned out as such. It's a completly biased post and he doesn't even try to reason why blizzard might have thought it was a good idea to implement X or Y. It's exactly like nn42 said: "You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design."
What are you trying to say, i cant really understand your points. Reword your arguments because i dont know what are you comparing to what.
For example: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers So you mean that IF dragoon appeared in sc2 it would become deathball unit? But how its connected to OP and what we are talking about in this thread?
What I was trying to say is: blizzard didn't just introduce 1a units but rather cut a lot of those as well. They did a good job with a lot of units and even things that one could argue that they turned out bad, usually have an upside. Or at least a reasoning behind them. EternaLLegacy doesn't try to look at things from both sides in his OP. He only talks about things that are bad (from his point of view) and therefore misses the topic. Instead of being objective he only talks about the things he can bash on, not about the things that turned out well. That makes the topic biased.
Also if you go through this very thread, you will find a question about broodlords and he answers it with something like: What about it? The broodlord is a fine unit.
WHY THE HELL IS THIS NOT IN THE OP? Why does he not discuss the Broodlord in the OP, when it is actually a new unit. It is what this topic should be about: Unit design in SC2. But he doesn't give a shit about well designed units or being objective. He just wants to write a rant about SC2!
Edit: It is related with the dragoon, because the Stalker is such an example of a unit that has way more microability than a dragoon in an SC2 enviroment. There is no way around an objective discussion, without mentioning such examples.
Yeah but MurdeR plenty of Protoss complain as well.
My biggest beef is how micro and its importance just doesn't scale at all well as armies increase in size. In the early to midgame you see some really intense micro-battles, I remember Huk holding off a 2 rax in some GSL with almost no units whatsoever just with some great control. My point of contention is deathball syndrome.
Look at the PvTs in the GSL this week, all of the late-game ones that I saw devolved into spellcaster wars. Alive gets one EMP off on Brown who had thoroughly outplayed him for the entire game, taking out his aoe and he instant-loses. Can't recall what set it was, think it was the first one though. There were games were Terrans played extremely well, EMPs missed templars and all the bio melted with no hope of a comeback.
It's the lack of ANY kind of even-trade when mid-lategame Toss armies come up against against a Terran of equivalent skill. Almost without exception whichever army wins the battle, CRUSHES the other army and the game is over unless some miracle occurs.
In addition, another problem I have is how design impacts upon a race's style. People all-too-often forget that the reason Tosses turtle and only move out at critical mass, or hit 2-base all-ins is because they can't retreat from a battle that goes wrong. Concussive shells can make an even early-game skirmish result in the Protoss losing his entire army. Zerg's movespeed and spells like fungal do the same. Protoss have a similar mechanism with forcefields too.
The natural consequence of this is to play defensively until you have a critical mass of units to outright crush your opponent, and people whine about it?
I find it sad as well that when I was trying to play a macro style and exclude Collosi from all my matches, I was getting trounced routinely. To rely on a stupid, gimmicky a-move unit that requires no skill to use as a crutch is saddening and reduces strategic variety.
For those who disagree with me on any of these points, please address what I have said with your own opinions rather than say 'Blizz won't do anything' or 'go back to BW' (which I didn't really play btw). Would be interested to get a debate going.
For those who disagree with me on any of these points, please address what I have said with your own opinions rather than say 'Blizz won't do anything' or 'go back to BW' (which I didn't really play btw). Would be interested to get a debate going.
You make it clear! I agree with you in almost everything.
On January 19 2012 00:20 jellyjello wrote: First off, I'd like to applaud the OP for his effort. Enjoyed reading your post. Aside from all the micro debate, I do agree with the OP on one thing: SC2 is becoming too stale and predictable once the build order phase is passed.
I also cannot believe you didn't mention this. If you really look at the unit interface of SC2, the behavior of some of the ranged units is so unrealistic. For example, take a look at the marine death ball. You have marines basically firing through each other's back in multiple rows, and with such precision and speed. Or, how colossus can stomp through his own allied units without causing any damage. This gives so much power to ranged units over melee units which limits the game dynamics.
are you seriously critizing the aspect of realism in a Fantasy-RTS-Game? You're kidding right?
You are right. The hell with realism! Let's just make the marines fly and their rifles can fire unlimited nukes. After all, who really cares about the realism in RTS game?
No, but it's almost unplayable if you'd take care of such things. What do you want, that colossi moving above your army actually deal damage to the units? that marines MUST stand side-by-side in order to NOT kill other marines? that's just unplayable, sorry mate that just wouldn't work, not in a fast paced RTS.
I'd like to add to this that Starcraft is sci-fi in the sense that it uses science as magic. There could easily be any number of justifications for anything (augmented aim via the marine suit, just off the top of my head). Realism simply does not apply to such a world.
On January 20 2012 08:16 Destructicon wrote: I think that is unfair and just putting words in the OPs mouth. I'm not sure if Blizz either wanted to speed up the game, or they wanted to somehow replicate the more difficult macro of BW without going for an interface that wants to kill you, but they did a great job with the macro abilities. You basically can save them up to a certain extent, but they reward the player paying the most atention and using them consistently. MULEs and Chrono you can save up, but it is generally better to use them as they are available for the consistency of production and resource income.
Larva inject is the only mechanic that truly punishes you for not timing it right.
Overall though, the macro abilities aren't bad at all, in fact we could probably even use some more. I'd prefer the SC2 interface with more active macro abilities than the BW interface that just makes you want to kill yourself. I'm quite sure that is the way forward and anyone can appreciate that as well.
It would be unfair, if I hadn't read this in another thread (something about gold minerals) before:
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
It's quite the other way round. The OP bends the reality so that his points sound true... If the OP actually focused on what opportunities blizzard let slip(he mentions it shortly, especially with roaches, but there is a lot more...) I could agree a lot with him. But the fact that he talks about unit design by comparing everything to broodwar and doesn't mention stuff like: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers -) cutting of the scout which would have been a completly skillless unit in SC2 -) Viking as Mech Anti Air is a more interesting concept than the Goliath (in an SC2 enviroment, the goliath would have been just another 1a unit) -) pure bio should be just as viable as pure mech etc. etc... just shows that he actually didn't think things through or didn't want to mention any forms of improvments or at least calling them "attempts for improvements" if he doesn't think they turned out as such. It's a completly biased post and he doesn't even try to reason why blizzard might have thought it was a good idea to implement X or Y. It's exactly like nn42 said: "You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design."
What are you trying to say, i cant really understand your points. Reword your arguments because i dont know what are you comparing to what.
For example: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers So you mean that IF dragoon appeared in sc2 it would become deathball unit? But how its connected to OP and what we are talking about in this thread?
What I was trying to say is: blizzard didn't just introduce 1a units but rather cut a lot of those as well. They did a good job with a lot of units and even things that one could argue that they turned out bad, usually have an upside. Or at least a reasoning behind them. EternaLLegacy doesn't try to look at things from both sides in his OP. He only talks about things that are bad (from his point of view) and therefore misses the topic. Instead of being objective he only talks about the things he can bash on, not about the things that turned out well. That makes the topic biased.
Also if you go through this very thread, you will find a question about broodlords and he answers it with something like: What about it? The broodlord is a fine unit.
WHY THE HELL IS THIS NOT IN THE OP? Why does he not discuss the Broodlord in the OP, when it is actually a new unit. It is what this topic should be about: Unit design in SC2. But he doesn't give a shit about well designed units or being objective. He just wants to write a rant about SC2!
Edit: It is related with the dragoon, because the Stalker is such an example of a unit that has way more microability than a dragoon in an SC2 enviroment. There is no way around an objective discussion, without mentioning such examples.
As I've already explained, there is no benefit to writing extensively on the good parts of SC2. The article was enormous already, and I wasn't about to write a book for an internet forum. If someone else wants to do it, by all means do it. If you think everyone is hypercritical and nobody talks about the good stuff, you should write an article on how SC2 is awesome. Don't come into my thread and bitch and moan that I'm not writing the same OP you would've wrote.
The thread is about design problems, so that's what I wrote about.
Wombat, just because you can't play without colossi is not a criticism of the game. It's a criticism of you. Time and time again these complaints reek of "if I fuck up then I lose." quit it already. Rather than complaining, why don't you actually try to figure out how to pull these things off.
The game is hard and unforgiving. Stop complaining and try to figure it out. You'll have a lot more fun.
On January 20 2012 08:16 Destructicon wrote: I think that is unfair and just putting words in the OPs mouth. I'm not sure if Blizz either wanted to speed up the game, or they wanted to somehow replicate the more difficult macro of BW without going for an interface that wants to kill you, but they did a great job with the macro abilities. You basically can save them up to a certain extent, but they reward the player paying the most atention and using them consistently. MULEs and Chrono you can save up, but it is generally better to use them as they are available for the consistency of production and resource income.
Larva inject is the only mechanic that truly punishes you for not timing it right.
Overall though, the macro abilities aren't bad at all, in fact we could probably even use some more. I'd prefer the SC2 interface with more active macro abilities than the BW interface that just makes you want to kill yourself. I'm quite sure that is the way forward and anyone can appreciate that as well.
It would be unfair, if I hadn't read this in another thread (something about gold minerals) before:
On January 16 2012 01:36 EternaLLegacy wrote: The problem isn't just the gold mineral, it's the mule itself.
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
It's quite the other way round. The OP bends the reality so that his points sound true... If the OP actually focused on what opportunities blizzard let slip(he mentions it shortly, especially with roaches, but there is a lot more...) I could agree a lot with him. But the fact that he talks about unit design by comparing everything to broodwar and doesn't mention stuff like: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers -) cutting of the scout which would have been a completly skillless unit in SC2 -) Viking as Mech Anti Air is a more interesting concept than the Goliath (in an SC2 enviroment, the goliath would have been just another 1a unit) -) pure bio should be just as viable as pure mech etc. etc... just shows that he actually didn't think things through or didn't want to mention any forms of improvments or at least calling them "attempts for improvements" if he doesn't think they turned out as such. It's a completly biased post and he doesn't even try to reason why blizzard might have thought it was a good idea to implement X or Y. It's exactly like nn42 said: "You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design."
What are you trying to say, i cant really understand your points. Reword your arguments because i dont know what are you comparing to what.
For example: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers So you mean that IF dragoon appeared in sc2 it would become deathball unit? But how its connected to OP and what we are talking about in this thread?
What I was trying to say is: blizzard didn't just introduce 1a units but rather cut a lot of those as well. They did a good job with a lot of units and even things that one could argue that they turned out bad, usually have an upside. Or at least a reasoning behind them. EternaLLegacy doesn't try to look at things from both sides in his OP. He only talks about things that are bad (from his point of view) and therefore misses the topic. Instead of being objective he only talks about the things he can bash on, not about the things that turned out well. That makes the topic biased.
Also if you go through this very thread, you will find a question about broodlords and he answers it with something like: What about it? The broodlord is a fine unit.
WHY THE HELL IS THIS NOT IN THE OP? Why does he not discuss the Broodlord in the OP, when it is actually a new unit. It is what this topic should be about: Unit design in SC2. But he doesn't give a shit about well designed units or being objective. He just wants to write a rant about SC2!
Edit: It is related with the dragoon, because the Stalker is such an example of a unit that has way more microability than a dragoon in an SC2 enviroment. There is no way around an objective discussion, without mentioning such examples.
As I've already explained, there is no benefit to writing extensively on the good parts of SC2. The article was enormous already, and I wasn't about to write a book for an internet forum. If someone else wants to do it, by all means do it. If you think everyone is hypercritical and nobody talks about the good stuff, you should write an article on how SC2 is awesome. Don't come into my thread and bitch and moan that I'm not writing the same OP you would've wrote.
The thread is about design problems, so that's what I wrote about.
First of all this a forum. If you don't want people to come in here and discuss about your opinion, then you better don't post it. Second: The thread's title is "The Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design" and not "Why Starcraft 2 sucks". So you simply miss the topic if you only discuss the downsides. And it's not as if you didn't realize this. You simply want to make it sound as if SC2 is objectivly worse than BW.
On January 20 2012 08:16 Destructicon wrote: I think that is unfair and just putting words in the OPs mouth. I'm not sure if Blizz either wanted to speed up the game, or they wanted to somehow replicate the more difficult macro of BW without going for an interface that wants to kill you, but they did a great job with the macro abilities. You basically can save them up to a certain extent, but they reward the player paying the most atention and using them consistently. MULEs and Chrono you can save up, but it is generally better to use them as they are available for the consistency of production and resource income.
Larva inject is the only mechanic that truly punishes you for not timing it right.
Overall though, the macro abilities aren't bad at all, in fact we could probably even use some more. I'd prefer the SC2 interface with more active macro abilities than the BW interface that just makes you want to kill yourself. I'm quite sure that is the way forward and anyone can appreciate that as well.
It would be unfair, if I hadn't read this in another thread (something about gold minerals) before:
On January 16 2012 01:36 EternaLLegacy wrote: The problem isn't just the gold mineral, it's the mule itself.
I started readin the OP and I was like, wow someone actually bringing a more widened view on units of SC2. Nice. ...
Then I kept reading, and it was the same (excuse the language) retarded whine we saw back 2 weeks after the game release.
Aside from that, here's my thoughts: - Colossus Yes, it might be "boring" because it has no abilities. But in its defence, it rewards decision making of when to start making them and when to stop making them. Also not microing colossus = their range makes them shoot supply depots and other random stuff, so, micro'd colossus > a-moved, I actually _always_ have them in a separate control group. In pvp they have a distinct role, in beta it was a colossus race, now as the metagame has progressed you might actually loose the game if you try to get them. Again rewarding decision making rather than, 'herp getting ghosts tvp is always good and can't be punished - derp'. Its a different kind of skill.
Only regarding how the unit functions I agree it could be considered 'boring' compared to the micro fest that is ghosts-infestor-HT. But its not in any regard skilless.
- Roach Zerg has alot of APM tied up into macro. They have been given a strong bulk a-move unit to help them actually play the game. Otherwise you'd be unable to play the race as a sub diamond player. Easy as that. Boring or not, its done to serve a greater good game design not just unit design. The unit actually have burrow and burrow movement to make it more interesting mid&late game.
- Thor I agree 100%. It's clumsy, almost exactly no micro and is plain boring. I agree with Blizzards decision to 'remove' it.
- Forcefields I think we all can agree that right now, GW units minus sentry gets mathematically hammered by T and P low tech units. Also their upgrades scale bad as sht. So Blizzard figured they wanted an early-midgame function to keep the game go on without low tech 5min games. (see GSL S1) Forcefields helps bringing the game into later stages. And in those later stages there are perfectly fine ways to negate forcefields.
- Micro reducing On the related topic of micro negating ingame abilities. They all require resources, time and micro to obtain. All those relate back to skill. (with the exception of forcefields, but forcefield is a separate topic, see above). So I don't see an issue here, more about the whole concept of one player removing the other players ability to play the game, even its done through skill. Generally I'm on the fence on this one, but in the end, it makes for a better game to watch.
- Phoenix So you bash on one of the most micro intensive units in the game? The fire while moving is to help protoss actually use the unit. just imagine the uselessness that is graviton beam + a-move with miss clicks. People are already staying clear of the unit because it takes to much APM upkeep. It'd be like microing mutas but you had to focus fire every unit or they wouldn't shoot. Delightful right?
- Zone control & siege tanks Blizzard is currently giving zone control 2.0 to terran with that mine thing that will whipe whole minerals. Just like vulture mines, guess you're happy about that. Tanks, they're pretty good. Agreed that protoss has many units that are actually good against specifically tanks. However, tanks as a single unit is totally fine. Couple them with marines and you can lol @ immortals, etc etc, and now we're into what's commonly referred as "Unit compositions". A subject you have completely ignored through out your whole post. How a unit functions coupled with another unit and their totalled interaction with the oppositions totals. Tanks DOES give you map/zone control. And not a single race can just run into 200/200 full mech. Its a fact, and its largely due to the tanks. Infact, I think you can have ONLY tanks, and any other equal value, of the correct scale and up, of ground army (even immortals) won't get near the tanks. They are massable and would the game not consist of anything else than ground army and maps that forced straight up engagements, tanks would win any given day against any given unit composition. This all brings us to the Mech vs Protoss discussion, and its a completely different one. I won't bring it any further than saying: You are wrong, tanks are good for zone coverage and they're the best value for the buck ground against ground army straight up fighting in the game.
- Static defences its a hard balance to walk. if static defences are to good, a good player won't be able to close out a game against a not so good player. you'll get stuck in the 'can't seem to finish out games' issue. Also it would as you yourself pointed out increase cheeses and also keep people in their bases, as the game would switch from 'trying to win the game' to 'trying not to loose the game'. Dropping and harassing would make lesser impact, resulting in more high tech ball vs ball. Thus increasing what you are trying to get rid of. So the static defences are quite balanced out right now in my opinion.
- Conclusion You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design. Then when I actually start to read what you're trying to say, a few facts become so clear.
- You're just bring up old whine. And I mean REALLY old whine. Like, Beta whine. - You're a BW nostalgia fag. Accept that sc2 is not bw. as a sequel I feel they have done a good job transferring the important stuff from BW, but still making this a unique game. Its obvious you wanted BW but with better graphics, guess what, the scene wanted change, and got change. - You're Terran.
However, your post was well constructed and nice with all the pictures and stuff. Its the content I'm opposed.
sorry but units role isnt to help player play but to be merely a tools in his hand AND player decides if they are gonna help him or not. There is no justyfing to introducing boring units or microless units(1a) or almost fully automated units, you bend the reality so your points and arguments can sound smart, and you think that already gives you a privilige of calling him nostalgia fag.
It's quite the other way round. The OP bends the reality so that his points sound true... If the OP actually focused on what opportunities blizzard let slip(he mentions it shortly, especially with roaches, but there is a lot more...) I could agree a lot with him. But the fact that he talks about unit design by comparing everything to broodwar and doesn't mention stuff like: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers -) cutting of the scout which would have been a completly skillless unit in SC2 -) Viking as Mech Anti Air is a more interesting concept than the Goliath (in an SC2 enviroment, the goliath would have been just another 1a unit) -) pure bio should be just as viable as pure mech etc. etc... just shows that he actually didn't think things through or didn't want to mention any forms of improvments or at least calling them "attempts for improvements" if he doesn't think they turned out as such. It's a completly biased post and he doesn't even try to reason why blizzard might have thought it was a good idea to implement X or Y. It's exactly like nn42 said: "You've dressed up your post in nice words and dropped allot of what at first sight might look insightful remarks about general unit design."
What are you trying to say, i cant really understand your points. Reword your arguments because i dont know what are you comparing to what.
For example: -) dragoons with SC2 pathing would have been even deathballier units then stalkers So you mean that IF dragoon appeared in sc2 it would become deathball unit? But how its connected to OP and what we are talking about in this thread?
What I was trying to say is: blizzard didn't just introduce 1a units but rather cut a lot of those as well. They did a good job with a lot of units and even things that one could argue that they turned out bad, usually have an upside. Or at least a reasoning behind them. EternaLLegacy doesn't try to look at things from both sides in his OP. He only talks about things that are bad (from his point of view) and therefore misses the topic. Instead of being objective he only talks about the things he can bash on, not about the things that turned out well. That makes the topic biased.
Also if you go through this very thread, you will find a question about broodlords and he answers it with something like: What about it? The broodlord is a fine unit.
WHY THE HELL IS THIS NOT IN THE OP? Why does he not discuss the Broodlord in the OP, when it is actually a new unit. It is what this topic should be about: Unit design in SC2. But he doesn't give a shit about well designed units or being objective. He just wants to write a rant about SC2!
Edit: It is related with the dragoon, because the Stalker is such an example of a unit that has way more microability than a dragoon in an SC2 enviroment. There is no way around an objective discussion, without mentioning such examples.
As I've already explained, there is no benefit to writing extensively on the good parts of SC2. The article was enormous already, and I wasn't about to write a book for an internet forum. If someone else wants to do it, by all means do it. If you think everyone is hypercritical and nobody talks about the good stuff, you should write an article on how SC2 is awesome. Don't come into my thread and bitch and moan that I'm not writing the same OP you would've wrote.
The thread is about design problems, so that's what I wrote about.
First of all this a forum. If you don't want people to come in here and discuss about your opinion, then you better don't post it. Second: The thread's title is "The Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design" and not "Why Starcraft 2 sucks". So you simply miss the topic if you only discuss the downsides. And it's not as if you didn't realize this. You simply want to make it sound as if SC2 is objectivly worse than BW.
My purpose was to write about things that need addressing in the next 2 expansions to improve the quality of the game. It was not to simply have a nice chat about what is good and bad about SC2. You seem to have a very big problem accepting that it is my article and so it's going to be what I want to write about, not you.
On January 21 2012 00:34 DoubleReed wrote: Wombat, just because you can't play without colossi is not a criticism of the game. It's a criticism of you. Time and time again these complaints reek of "if I fuck up then I lose." quit it already. Rather than complaining, why don't you actually try to figure out how to pull these things off.
The game is hard and unforgiving. Stop complaining and try to figure it out. You'll have a lot more fun.
When did I complain and blame my losses on excluding that tech? I was experimenting because I was sick of the unit, and had success with 2 base all-ins, but couldn't win in non-gimmicky, 'straight up' macro games without their AoE, at least against certain compositions.
Note that I have no problem with templar, the other half of the 'required' AoE partnership. These are units that require more pre-planning, especially since the amulet nerf, and they need to be well positioned to maximise their potential.
The collosus as a unit has none of these requirements and is a crutch for the Protoss race. I have no issue with units that aren't obligatory in many situations but that require some ability to use. It's a fucking stupid unit that requires no micro, indeed a unit that can punish you for attempting to micro it by not dealing optimal damage. I just 4gate now every PvP so I don't have to deal with, or partake in collosus wars which are just obnoxious. Don't even care if I get forcefielded out and lose, nothing annoys me more than players turtling and making collosus and a-moving, nothing. Not getting blind 6-pooled, not getting 'rine SCV all-inned, literally nothing in the game irks me to that degree.
If other races' players are allowed to complain about deathballs, surely Protoss players complaining about the unit should be extended the same courtesy without criticism of their perceived skill-level.
I completely agree with most of the things you said but maybe not everything exactly as you put it. Blizzard just never wanted to make any of the drastic changes they needed to take to fix some of the bad design choices they made early on. Force fields and fungal growth are big problems with the game in my opinion that kind of creates other problems when you try to get around the problems they make. They were cool ideas, but not all good ideas make good units or abilities. That being said they made a good try and topping brood war might not even be possible. Its like capcom trying to make a fighting game better then street fighter 2 turbo its just not possible.
On January 11 2012 03:45 Markwerf wrote: Pff alot of these are just disguised balance whines. First of all you don't seem to know that much about gamedesign I'm realising. Complexity is not the holy grail in game design which your article does make it seem to be. Depth while remaining clarity is important. Chess is a great game because it's complex but still relatively easy to understand and thus strategize for, you don't have to know how to win directly for example by simply focussing on winning pieces allowing for people to plan strategies while not being experts. Go on the other hand is by many players especially in more Western societies deemed as too complex because it's very hard to set intermediar goals for the game because the game is more difficult to set subgoals for.
Microless units are needed to create important units, if each unit had many abilities etc it would become too chaotic or complex. The microless units you mention are not poorly designed at all imo in fact many of them have interesting abilities i think. Roach for example may look like a boring vanilla unit but wasn't the hydra in BW as well? Roaches being no AA means there is much more room for air units to play a crucial role in XvZ matchups a great design choice imo. The only poor unit design mentioned in this article here is the colossus, not per se because it's boring in itself but because of the counterunits (viking and corruptor) that there are which invalidate other cool units (battlecruiser and carrier).
In the same vein I don't see units that restrict micro as poor either. In the case of the sentry there is plenty that can be done about it for example, flanking, dropping, burrow, fungal, emp, etc.etc. Losing to it is aggrevating perhaps but that doesn't make the design poor, it's just a hidden balance whine.. Stasis and lockdown where liked abilities as well how are stuff like fungal etc different? If truly nothing could be done about these abilities then it might be problematic but there really is plenty you can do, for example marauder kiting can be solved by forcefields so these 'unfun' mechanics can perfectly solve eachother.
The point about a slight lack of zone control units I agree with but saying siege tanks don't fulfill that role now is silly. The entire TvZ matchup and TvT matchup revolve for a large part about zone and map control because of the siege tank. Saying this doesn't work properly is just silly, breaking siege lines is still very hard. The problem is just that you seem to be comparing the game to BW too much, yes PvT is not the same and the PvT there is now might not as good the BW variant but that doesn't mean the tank is broken.. they just chose an other path for sc2.
All this pretending to be some game design guru while it's just an elaborate balance whine basically is annoying. The conclusion is also just complete bogus.
Would all have to agree with everything said, sadly.
On January 21 2012 00:34 DoubleReed wrote: Wombat, just because you can't play without colossi is not a criticism of the game. It's a criticism of you. Time and time again these complaints reek of "if I fuck up then I lose." quit it already. Rather than complaining, why don't you actually try to figure out how to pull these things off.
The game is hard and unforgiving. Stop complaining and try to figure it out. You'll have a lot more fun.
When did I complain and blame my losses on excluding that tech? I was experimenting because I was sick of the unit, and had success with 2 base all-ins, but couldn't win in non-gimmicky, 'straight up' macro games without their AoE, at least against certain compositions.
Note that I have no problem with templar, the other half of the 'required' AoE partnership. These are units that require more pre-planning, especially since the amulet nerf, and they need to be well positioned to maximise their potential.
The collosus as a unit has none of these requirements and is a crutch for the Protoss race. I have no issue with units that aren't obligatory in many situations but that require some ability to use. It's a fucking stupid unit that requires no micro, indeed a unit that can punish you for attempting to micro it by not dealing optimal damage. I just 4gate now every PvP so I don't have to deal with, or partake in collosus wars which are just obnoxious. Don't even care if I get forcefielded out and lose, nothing annoys me more than players turtling and making collosus and a-moving, nothing. Not getting blind 6-pooled, not getting 'rine SCV all-inned, literally nothing in the game irks me to that degree.
If other races' players are allowed to complain about deathballs, surely Protoss players complaining about the unit should be extended the same courtesy without criticism of their perceived skill-level.
I'm so confused. Your second sentence blatantly contradicts your first sentence. Ow my brain.
And all right, fair enough. I'll extend you courtesy on deathballs because they are rather idiotic.
sorry sawamura i meant greatest sc2 game ever. but ill have to watch that BW game fore sure
edit: that was such a good game sawamura, thanks for the video. awesome back and forth action, something we dont see in sc2. looked like lurkers and dark swarm were the two reasons for that. what was blizzard thinking when they decided not to use those two units from starcraft2
Hmm, I think it would be hilarious to have a playable race of all the units we miss from broodwar. Firebats, medics, lurkers, dragoons, vultures, defilers, reavers, shuttles, wraiths, corsairs, arbiters, science vessels, guardians, and scourge.
On January 21 2012 15:38 napkinlad wrote: sorry sawamura i meant greatest sc2 game ever. but ill have to watch that BW game fore sure
edit: that was such a good game sawamura, thanks for the video. awesome back and forth action, something we dont see in sc2. looked like lurkers and dark swarm were the two reasons for that. what was blizzard thinking when they decided not to use those two units from starcraft2
You might want to watch the whole series which is in my opinion is the best starleague finals between these two players . Iris was at his prime and GGplay is also at his best during these starleague finals . Well let's just say blizzard want's to do something different so people can differentiate between broodwar and sc2 although by doing that they removed a whole lot of unit's which are really crucial for standard ,cheesy and awesome play like the defilers,science vessels,vultures with spider mines , goliaths , really bad ass siege tank's and etc .
Was the removal of this unit's who played crucial roles in each races worth it ? Maybe to some , Maybe no to some .
On January 21 2012 00:34 DoubleReed wrote: Wombat, just because you can't play without colossi is not a criticism of the game. It's a criticism of you. Time and time again these complaints reek of "if I fuck up then I lose." quit it already. Rather than complaining, why don't you actually try to figure out how to pull these things off.
The game is hard and unforgiving. Stop complaining and try to figure it out. You'll have a lot more fun.
When did I complain and blame my losses on excluding that tech? I was experimenting because I was sick of the unit, and had success with 2 base all-ins, but couldn't win in non-gimmicky, 'straight up' macro games without their AoE, at least against certain compositions.
Note that I have no problem with templar, the other half of the 'required' AoE partnership. These are units that require more pre-planning, especially since the amulet nerf, and they need to be well positioned to maximise their potential.
The collosus as a unit has none of these requirements and is a crutch for the Protoss race. I have no issue with units that aren't obligatory in many situations but that require some ability to use. It's a fucking stupid unit that requires no micro, indeed a unit that can punish you for attempting to micro it by not dealing optimal damage. I just 4gate now every PvP so I don't have to deal with, or partake in collosus wars which are just obnoxious. Don't even care if I get forcefielded out and lose, nothing annoys me more than players turtling and making collosus and a-moving, nothing. Not getting blind 6-pooled, not getting 'rine SCV all-inned, literally nothing in the game irks me to that degree.
If other races' players are allowed to complain about deathballs, surely Protoss players complaining about the unit should be extended the same courtesy without criticism of their perceived skill-level.
I'm so confused. Your second sentence blatantly contradicts your first sentence. Ow my brain.
And all right, fair enough. I'll extend you courtesy on deathballs because they are rather idiotic.
First bit was badly worded, what I meant was I am not mechanically at the level where I can just do what I want. The racial balance in the game is pretty good at present, but from a design perspective I dislike getting railed down one particular tech path to get one unit that becomes a near-necessity
God knows how Terran feel having to go MMMVG every game against Protoss
On January 11 2012 03:45 Markwerf wrote: Pff alot of these are just disguised balance whines. First of all you don't seem to know that much about gamedesign I'm realising. Complexity is not the holy grail in game design which your article does make it seem to be. Depth while remaining clarity is important. Chess is a great game because it's complex but still relatively easy to understand and thus strategize for, you don't have to know how to win directly for example by simply focussing on winning pieces allowing for people to plan strategies while not being experts. Go on the other hand is by many players especially in more Western societies deemed as too complex because it's very hard to set intermediar goals for the game because the game is more difficult to set subgoals for.
Microless units are needed to create important units, if each unit had many abilities etc it would become too chaotic or complex. The microless units you mention are not poorly designed at all imo in fact many of them have interesting abilities i think. Roach for example may look like a boring vanilla unit but wasn't the hydra in BW as well? Roaches being no AA means there is much more room for air units to play a crucial role in XvZ matchups a great design choice imo. The only poor unit design mentioned in this article here is the colossus, not per se because it's boring in itself but because of the counterunits (viking and corruptor) that there are which invalidate other cool units (battlecruiser and carrier).
In the same vein I don't see units that restrict micro as poor either. In the case of the sentry there is plenty that can be done about it for example, flanking, dropping, burrow, fungal, emp, etc.etc. Losing to it is aggrevating perhaps but that doesn't make the design poor, it's just a hidden balance whine.. Stasis and lockdown where liked abilities as well how are stuff like fungal etc different? If truly nothing could be done about these abilities then it might be problematic but there really is plenty you can do, for example marauder kiting can be solved by forcefields so these 'unfun' mechanics can perfectly solve eachother.
The point about a slight lack of zone control units I agree with but saying siege tanks don't fulfill that role now is silly. The entire TvZ matchup and TvT matchup revolve for a large part about zone and map control because of the siege tank. Saying this doesn't work properly is just silly, breaking siege lines is still very hard. The problem is just that you seem to be comparing the game to BW too much, yes PvT is not the same and the PvT there is now might not as good the BW variant but that doesn't mean the tank is broken.. they just chose an other path for sc2.
All this pretending to be some game design guru while it's just an elaborate balance whine basically is annoying. The conclusion is also just complete bogus.
That is balntantly wrong, micro-less units are just plain borring and bad, they require very little input to be successful while dealing tons of damage. And there is a perfect example of a late game unit that, was strong, but still micro-able, the carrier, BW version of course. A unit that was fragile vs goliaths but could be used to hit and run, snipe key units/buildings, had to abuse terrain etc. Just because we don't have more imagination to envision better ways for these micro-less units to work, doesn't mean they don't exist, and the game wouldn't become overly complex if all units where micro-able, the game would gain depth, because you could do way more with your units if you used them effectively.
And micro-reducing abilities are bad because, flanking, dropping, burrow and EMPs happen regardless of these, the pre-battle micro and dance will always take place between two good players, trying to size themselves up and find the perfect oportunity to engage. The big difference is that, once engaged one player will not be able to do anything but lose his entire army if there are FF and FG present.
I don't mention concusive shells and Marauders because, they require a great deal of continous APM to pull off, and there are still ways to micro against it even so, like setting up flanks and such, FF and FG however, once they hit, there is nothing you can do, you will lose a big chunk of your army.
I got one simple idea for the infamous Colossus splash:
Many splash damage spells in Star2 can't stack, for example Fungal and Psi-storm. What if Colossus splash also couldn't stack, wouldn't that fix some parts of what makes Colos so horrible design wise?
And on top of this, another great idea:
Make sentries only able to place FF's within pylon radiuses. This would make it possible to block ramps to avoid early runby's, but the spell wont work aggressively anymore as the worst spell in Blizzard's history, unless they pre-emtively build Pylons everywhere. Or, the cool micro trick Genius used to win the final in GSL May 2012, the WarpPrism - Sentry Combo to be able to use aggressive FF's.
On January 25 2012 10:15 HowardRoark wrote: I got one simple idea for the infamous Colossus splash:
Many splash damage spells in Star2 can't stack, for example Fungal and Psi-storm. What if Colossus splash also couldn't stack, wouldn't that fix some parts of what makes Colos so horrible design wise?
And on top of this, another great idea:
Make sentries only able to place FF's within pylon radiuses. This would make it possible to block ramps to avoid early runby's, but the spell wont work aggressively anymore as the worst spell in Blizzard's history, unless they pre-emtively build Pylons everywhere. Or, the cool micro trick Genius used to win the final in GSL May 2012, the WarpPrism - Sentry Combo to be able to use aggressive FF's.
FF only in pylon range? that is rediclious.. If you get attacked with a bunch of roaches you're dead, because if you do a standard wall-off at the ramp with gateway and cybercore, the pylon won't cover the lower ramp, so roaches could just walk UP the ramp and start pounding the core/gate... worst idea ever, sorry bro.. (and that's just the first reason which came to my mind immediately) Protoss NEEDS sentries and FF, because they cannot deal with masses of units, therefor they MUST always fight vs. equal or lower amounts, because you get overwhelmed otherwise. Even roach/hydra would beat colossi army without FF..
Regarding your non-"stacking"-colossi damage: that makes little sense either, as colossi attack is not a "spell". Therefor, making colossi attacks "not stack" would mean essentially the same as if the attack from two different stalkers could not damage one marine. That's nonsense. It's like complaining that 3 tanks one-shot stalkers.
I always try to spread word about this imho underrated(relatively) OSL finals, this is one of the highest skill level zerg play in bw... There is no second to this, when it comes to defending the indefensible, one of the most clutch OSL finals, one of the most impressive showcases of player endurance, first + Show Spoiler +
3 set comeback
in OSL history. sneak peak"terrible" is just mistype)
I always try to spread word about this imho underrated(relatively) OSL finals, this is one of the highest skill level zerg play in bw... There is no second to this, when it comes to defending the indefensible, one of the most clutch OSL finals, one of the most impressive showcases of player endurance, first + Show Spoiler +
I always try to spread word about this imho underrated(relatively) OSL finals, this is one of the highest skill level zerg play in bw... There is no second to this, when it comes to defending the indefensible, one of the most clutch OSL finals, one of the most impressive showcases of player endurance, first + Show Spoiler +
On January 25 2012 22:40 Garmer wrote: look at those vessel vs defiler.... in sc2 there isn't something like that, i wish the hunter seeker was more useful...
Look at Mine laying and Mine clearing in SC2 there isn't something like that, you don't have that devastating push weapon that cost 0 supply. I wish I had my mines back.
alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
Because PC gaming is essentially dead. There is just that much more profits to gain from consoles. With consoles, you do not need to worry about the average computer spec and therefore much easier to perform fixes because everyone is playing universally on the same system. This decreases their workforce and therefore need less budget. Also judging by the numbers alone, console games have outsold many of the best PC games. So it would be logical decision on which industry to invest.
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
Because not a lot of people care about game depth to the degree of which we're discussing here, most people already think SC2 is extremely complex and going further would only make it less popular.
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
Because PC gaming is essentially dead. There is just that much more profits to gain from consoles. With consoles, you do not need to worry about the average computer spec and therefore much easier to perform fixes because everyone is playing universally on the same system. This decreases their workforce and therefore need less budget. Also judging by the numbers alone, console games have outsold many of the best PC games. So it would be logical decision on which industry to invest.
PC hasn't been dead for a while. Steam sales are actually more than consoles for a few games especially low budged indie games.
With these figures at hand, we must confess that it gives us new confidence for the PC. The sales that we have had (and are having) are more than enough to motivate developing a game with the PC as the main (and even only) platform. Based on what we have seen, the online PC market is just getting bigger and bigger, and we are convinced we are far from the end of this growth. We think that other developers that consider making their game exclusive to a console might want to think again.
Oh and I'm sure blizz is happy they don't have to pay 40k per patch like the consoles demand.
An indie rts game designed to be an esport would be interesting especially if someone like day9 was helping to design it. I'd really like that to happen. Skullgirls is from an indie company designed to be a competitive fighting game so it could be similar budget to that I guess. (though it is console exclusive)
Achron is an indie RTS and I thought it was a lot of fun but the graphics are bad and the gameplay is confusing to spectate with all the time travel so it would be hard to make it work as an esport.
On January 25 2012 22:40 Garmer wrote: look at those vessel vs defiler.... in sc2 there isn't something like that, i wish the hunter seeker was more useful...
Look at Mine laying and Mine clearing in SC2 there isn't something like that, you don't have that devastating push weapon that cost 0 supply. I wish I had my mines back.
I miss when Hellions cost 25 less minerals and carried 3 small nukes.
Those were the days when RTS games were more balanced.
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
Because PC gaming is essentially dead. There is just that much more profits to gain from consoles. With consoles, you do not need to worry about the average computer spec and therefore much easier to perform fixes because everyone is playing universally on the same system. This decreases their workforce and therefore need less budget. Also judging by the numbers alone, console games have outsold many of the best PC games. So it would be logical decision on which industry to invest.
We'll see. The new Unreal engine is supposed to be incredibly powerful. Too powerful, in fact. The PS3 hasn't yet been maxed out and the XBox720 is supposed to be slightly short of its specifications. Unreal Engine 4 will be more powerful than the PS3 can handle, and since a PS4 isn't coming out any time soon, that will force its games onto PCs for a few years.
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
Because PC gaming is essentially dead. There is just that much more profits to gain from consoles. With consoles, you do not need to worry about the average computer spec and therefore much easier to perform fixes because everyone is playing universally on the same system. This decreases their workforce and therefore need less budget. Also judging by the numbers alone, console games have outsold many of the best PC games. So it would be logical decision on which industry to invest.
PC hasn't been dead for a while. Steam sales are actually more than consoles for a few games especially low budged indie games.
With these figures at hand, we must confess that it gives us new confidence for the PC. The sales that we have had (and are having) are more than enough to motivate developing a game with the PC as the main (and even only) platform. Based on what we have seen, the online PC market is just getting bigger and bigger, and we are convinced we are far from the end of this growth. We think that other developers that consider making their game exclusive to a console might want to think again.
Oh and I'm sure blizz is happy they don't have to pay 40k per patch like the consoles demand.
An indie rts game designed to be an esport would be interesting especially if someone like day9 was helping to design it. I'd really like that to happen. Skullgirls is from an indie company designed to be a competitive fighting game so it could be similar budget to that I guess. (though it is console exclusive)
Achron is an indie RTS and I thought it was a lot of fun but the graphics are bad and the gameplay is confusing to spectate with all the time travel so it would be hard to make it work as an esport.
Link all you want but you still only cherry picked a few popular PC titles. Overall console gaming utterly trumps PC and the amount of console to PC ports hurts the sales even more.
Sure there's niche games that sell well but overall consoles are where it's at and that's a fact. Diablo 3 is coming to consoles, Guild Wars 2 is maybe coming to consoles, Dragon Age 2 was ruined because of consoles, Fallout would have been alot better if it weren't for consoles, Skyrim is worse due to consoles.
It's telling what state PC gaming is at when ID Software, a renowned PC developer, now limit their game engines to fit them on the 360 and PS3.
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
Because PC gaming is essentially dead. There is just that much more profits to gain from consoles. With consoles, you do not need to worry about the average computer spec and therefore much easier to perform fixes because everyone is playing universally on the same system. This decreases their workforce and therefore need less budget. Also judging by the numbers alone, console games have outsold many of the best PC games. So it would be logical decision on which industry to invest.
An indie rts game designed to be an esport would be interesting especially if someone like day9 was helping to design it. I'd really like that to happen. Skullgirls is from an indie company designed to be a competitive fighting game so it could be similar budget to that I guess. (though it is console exclusive)
Achron is an indie RTS and I thought it was a lot of fun but the graphics are bad and the gameplay is confusing to spectate with all the time travel so it would be hard to make it work as an esport.
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
I think its because of a serious misunderstanding of the gaming market by investors. Look at the direction games have headed. They're more like glorified cutscenes. The gaming industry is bigger than the movie industry in the US now. It's absolutely monolithic. If companies continue to focus on pouring out these bloated interactive movies, they're going to be spending an ungodly amount of resources on making them pretty and accessible. When you focus on making games as expensive as possible, you have to market to a larger audience, which means dumbing them down. This is true across every genre. RTS is especially hurt by that though, because RTS relies on attracting the cleverest players and appeals to a more intellectual audience to begin with. Hence, RTS these days is a very weak genre.
I often ask myself why there aren't more indie developers pushing RTS. However, if you look at Riot and S2 with LoL and HoN clearly there is a strategy market for indie developers. It can't be that there isn't the market, it just has to be that companies are actually that stupid. If I was a programmer you bet I'd be all over that kind of project. However, I don't have the technical expertise to get something like that off the ground.
After reading OP and first several posts I decided to come back here around page 32-33 and contribute my 2 cents to the discussion - only to find that this thread is somehow mutating unto some hideous PC-vs-consoles pissing contest. Let's get it back on track
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
You incorrectly assume that we know what makes a good game. We have some good ideas, certainly, but no one's ever made a game without some real or imagined flaws in design or development, and it's unreasonable to keep remaking things that we thought were good in a new game. It suffocates new ideas that may come to be the canon for "good game design".
People are constantly looking at games like Brood War through the rose-tinted glasses and saying that it did mechanics/unit design/ect better. But we can only see the end product of 12-plus years of progaming to what the game that we call "Brood War" has become. Brood War was not what it was one, two, or even 5 years to from its inception. It still has some truly crap design in it, ranging from largely unused units (Scouts, Dark Archons, Guardians, Queens), to what the OP terms "micro-reducing abilities" (assuming you want to call that bad design in the first place - Queen Ensnare, Arbiter Stasis field, Ghost Lockdown).
Which brings me to the problem of generally calling micro-reducing abilities or "micro-less" units "bad design". This is in no way bad design. It is a different design with a specific purpose. Losing micro in one area opens up opportunities for multitasking or micro in other areas. It may not be the design you had in mind, but it doesn't make it bad.
Take this example, for anyone who plays a DOTA-style arena game: the last-hitting mechanic.
In DotA and DotA II, you last-hit creeps for gold. You could also last-hit (attack) your own units and prevent enemy players from getting the gold from killing your creeps yourself. This was the standard. DotA was immensely popular and remains a model of "good" game design.
But when Riot formed and decided to create League of Legends, they didn't think so. They thought the idea of "denying" enemy players your creeps was counter-intuitive (why should players accept the idea that they should kill their own allied units? In what world does that make sense?). So they limited the ability to one character and eventually got rid of the mechanic entirely. To some, this made LoL seem less skill-intensive by lowering the amount of micro required to play - to others, this streamlined the design, focused the gameplay a bit more, and things just made sense. And LoL is immensely popular and a model of "good" game design.
Now Blizzard DOTA is taking another step by removing the last-hit mechanic entirely. If you contribute damage to a creep and it dies in a certain amount of time afterwords (essentially "assisting" in killing a creep), you get gold. One might imagine that this streamlines the game even more, allows players who don't normally get last hits (like support characters) to participating in gaining resources for items and feel more active in the game, and opens up the time previously spent microing for last-hits to do other (perhaps more exciting) things, like earlier teamfights and roaming.
The OP is titled "The Philosophy of Design", making us believe that there is the (singular) game design that should be adhered to, yet this is clearly not the case. OP is basing "good" on Brood War standards, which is fine if you want to remake Brood War. Things like Sentry Force Fields don't have a place in that design. But when we watch the ASUS ROG tourney today and FXOLucky goes up against d.Bischu, we're not going to automatically give it to Bischu because he can place some good force fields. We're not going to assume that Lucky masses hydras against a Colossus-equipped army and engage off creep on a choke point in the middle of Lost Temple like the OP screenshot would suggest. There WILL be a dance between these players, as there has been in the past - it just won't be the one you'd have in Brood War.
I find it ironic that you choose LoL as your example of "improvement" on game design when Chu switches from HoN to LoL and explicitly states that LoL is in no way a good competitive game. You took what should be an example of what not to do and tried to spin it as "hey, it's popular, so it must be better!" Instead, it's an example of how games get dumbed down for the bad players who don't want to improve to compete on par with good players.
On February 25 2012 01:24 Johnzee wrote: After reading OP and first several posts I decided to come back here around page 32-33 and contribute my 2 cents to the discussion - only to find that this thread is somehow mutating unto some hideous PC-vs-consoles pissing contest. Let's get it back on track
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
People are constantly looking at games like Brood War through the rose-tinted glasses and saying that it did mechanics/unit design/ect better. But we can only see the end product of 12-plus years of progaming to what the game that we call "Brood War" has become. Brood War was not what it was one, two, or even 5 years to from its inception. It still has some truly crap design in it, ranging from largely unused units (Scouts, Dark Archons, Guardians, Queens), to what the OP terms "micro-reducing abilities" (assuming you want to call that bad design in the first place - Queen Ensnare, Arbiter Stasis field, Ghost Lockdown).
Which brings me to the problem of generally calling micro-reducing abilities or "micro-less" units "bad design". This is in no way bad design. It is a different design with a specific purpose. Losing micro in one area opens up opportunities for multitasking or micro in other areas. It may not be the design you had in mind, but it doesn't make it bad.
I don't have much to actually add i just wanna point out that dark archons guardians and queens see usage every now and then. And by that i don't mean in a random game, if you watched proleague you might have seen a PvP where ( i think it was jaehoon ) a dark archon feedback'd 4 templars, basically preventing the other toss from casting a single storm, you can't do anything against feedback yet you wouldn't call it a micro reducing ability right ? Jaedong also used guardians and i've seen a TvZ where the zerg used queens vs terran mech. It's all from this season. It's not that those units are impossible to use, it's just that they are not needed, why would you make a scout instead of a corsair ? I've only ever seen one use of this, a one base allin PvZ build ( i assume it was jumper who did this ) : scouts kill hovies much faster than corsairs, hence you can snipe an hovie and sneak a dt, but you wouldn't get scouts to deal with mutas right ? Those units don't see much use because of the metagame, not because they are outright bad or can cost you the game, you COULD make them, there's just a better option in most cases, but getting guardians on maps where your nat has a cliff is not that uncommon, it's not that the unit is bad, it's just that you can make something that's BETTER instead. ( By the way , mazur just used scouts in the gambit cup, granted Breakz isn't as good as him, and i don't see why anyone would do that unless they're 100% their opponent won't get mutas / hydra bust, but still somewhat legit in the situation he was in, i'm not denying he could've raped him with sairs, i'm just saying they CAN see usage. )
I don't really see this " truly crap design " you talk about, i mean, i know brood war isn't perfect but when i think of the flaws of the game, it's mostly BO advantages and wins in mirror matchups, not arbiters, i mean, you can EMP arbiters, yet i wouldn't call EMP a micro reducing ability, you can more or less dodge the emp, and even if it was impossible, EMP doesn't outright win a game or anything like that. Storming is arguably one of the easiest things to do and it's still not as easy as 1a, i feel really sad when a storm obliterates 20 hydras, but it's not like it's imbalanced or micro limiting.
I am not too sure where i'm going with that but i guess my point is that even if brood war has flaws, it doesn't bring a stupid situation such as a wrap prism flying into your base, with 4 sentries in it, and then forcefielding your ramp forever while the toss warps in 4 zealots and kills all of your workers without you being unable to do anything about it and going like, " well he used forcefields and warped in an army, i guess i lost ... "
On February 25 2012 01:24 Johnzee wrote: After reading OP and first several posts I decided to come back here around page 32-33 and contribute my 2 cents to the discussion - only to find that this thread is somehow mutating unto some hideous PC-vs-consoles pissing contest. Let's get it back on track
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
People are constantly looking at games like Brood War through the rose-tinted glasses and saying that it did mechanics/unit design/ect better. But we can only see the end product of 12-plus years of progaming to what the game that we call "Brood War" has become. Brood War was not what it was one, two, or even 5 years to from its inception. It still has some truly crap design in it, ranging from largely unused units (Scouts, Dark Archons, Guardians, Queens), to what the OP terms "micro-reducing abilities" (assuming you want to call that bad design in the first place - Queen Ensnare, Arbiter Stasis field, Ghost Lockdown).
Which brings me to the problem of generally calling micro-reducing abilities or "micro-less" units "bad design". This is in no way bad design. It is a different design with a specific purpose. Losing micro in one area opens up opportunities for multitasking or micro in other areas. It may not be the design you had in mind, but it doesn't make it bad.
I don't have much to actually add i just wanna point out that dark archons guardians and queens see usage every now and then. And by that i don't mean in a random game, if you watched proleague you might have seen a PvP where ( i think it was jaehoon ) a dark archon feedback'd 4 templars, basically preventing the other toss from casting a single storm, you can't do anything against feedback yet you wouldn't call it a micro reducing ability right ? Jaedong also used guardians and i've seen a TvZ where the zerg used queens vs terran mech. It's all from this season. It's not that those units are impossible to use, it's just that they are not needed, why would you make a scout instead of a corsair ? I've only ever seen one use of this, a one base allin PvZ build ( i assume it was jumper who did this ) : scouts kill hovies much faster than corsairs, hence you can snipe an hovie and sneak a dt, but you wouldn't get scouts to deal with mutas right ? Those units don't see much use because of the metagame, not because they are outright bad or can cost you the game, you COULD make them, there's just a better option in most cases, but getting guardians on maps where your nat has a cliff is not that uncommon, it's not that the unit is bad, it's just that you can make something that's BETTER instead. ( By the way , mazur just used scouts in the gambit cup, granted Breakz isn't as good as him, and i don't see why anyone would do that unless they're 100% their opponent won't get mutas / hydra bust, but still somewhat legit in the situation he was in, i'm not denying he could've raped him with sairs, i'm just saying they CAN see usage. )
I don't really see this " truly crap design " you talk about, i mean, i know brood war isn't perfect but when i think of the flaws of the game, it's mostly BO advantages and wins in mirror matchups, not arbiters, i mean, you can EMP arbiters, yet i wouldn't call EMP a micro reducing ability, you can more or less dodge the emp, and even if it was impossible, EMP doesn't outright win a game or anything like that. Storming is arguably one of the easiest things to do and it's still not as easy as 1a, i feel really sad when a storm obliterates 20 hydras, but it's not like it's imbalanced or micro limiting.
I am not too sure where i'm going with that but i guess my point is that even if brood war has flaws, it doesn't bring a stupid situation such as a wrap prism flying into your base, with 4 sentries in it, and then forcefielding your ramp forever while the toss warps in 4 zealots and kills all of your workers without you being unable to do anything about it and going like, " well he used forcefields and warped in an army, i guess i lost ... "
I think it is awesome when somebody manages to warp a whole army in your main, while sentries forcefield the ramp.. Sure, you can't micro against it when the forcefield is there, but it's a risky move. The same holds for walking over a big buried baneling army, both only require scouting to prevent it, still everybody loves buried banelings. My point is that people just complain about balance (in this case, game design) when they are frustrated because of their own play. The reason why people love buried banelings killing armies, is because it doesn't happened to them yet....
Edit: I noticed that i overfocussed on your last point, while i agree with the rest of your post :-)
On February 25 2012 01:24 Johnzee wrote: After reading OP and first several posts I decided to come back here around page 32-33 and contribute my 2 cents to the discussion - only to find that this thread is somehow mutating unto some hideous PC-vs-consoles pissing contest. Let's get it back on track
On February 22 2012 08:46 jodogohoo wrote: alright, my one question is... if we know what makes a good game... why doesn't another company make a game that is what sc2 should have been. with better unit designs. mechanics. with better online design, not bnet 2.0. with all the good things that sc2 is missing. why isn't another companying looking at what's missing and making it happen. sc2 is only good because it's got some sort of irresponsible monopoly on the rts market.
like... if sc2 was in compeditive competition with other rts making companies... would sc2 get away with all the stupid shit that the company is doing?
note: sc2 is a great game but there are some things that... just frustrate me. custom games... and etc.. things that other people have come up with in their criticism...
People are constantly looking at games like Brood War through the rose-tinted glasses and saying that it did mechanics/unit design/ect better. But we can only see the end product of 12-plus years of progaming to what the game that we call "Brood War" has become. Brood War was not what it was one, two, or even 5 years to from its inception. It still has some truly crap design in it, ranging from largely unused units (Scouts, Dark Archons, Guardians, Queens), to what the OP terms "micro-reducing abilities" (assuming you want to call that bad design in the first place - Queen Ensnare, Arbiter Stasis field, Ghost Lockdown).
Which brings me to the problem of generally calling micro-reducing abilities or "micro-less" units "bad design". This is in no way bad design. It is a different design with a specific purpose. Losing micro in one area opens up opportunities for multitasking or micro in other areas. It may not be the design you had in mind, but it doesn't make it bad.
I don't have much to actually add i just wanna point out that dark archons guardians and queens see usage every now and then. And by that i don't mean in a random game, if you watched proleague you might have seen a PvP where ( i think it was jaehoon ) a dark archon feedback'd 4 templars, basically preventing the other toss from casting a single storm, you can't do anything against feedback yet you wouldn't call it a micro reducing ability right ? Jaedong also used guardians and i've seen a TvZ where the zerg used queens vs terran mech. It's all from this season. It's not that those units are impossible to use, it's just that they are not needed, why would you make a scout instead of a corsair ? I've only ever seen one use of this, a one base allin PvZ build ( i assume it was jumper who did this ) : scouts kill hovies much faster than corsairs, hence you can snipe an hovie and sneak a dt, but you wouldn't get scouts to deal with mutas right ? Those units don't see much use because of the metagame, not because they are outright bad or can cost you the game, you COULD make them, there's just a better option in most cases, but getting guardians on maps where your nat has a cliff is not that uncommon, it's not that the unit is bad, it's just that you can make something that's BETTER instead. ( By the way , mazur just used scouts in the gambit cup, granted Breakz isn't as good as him, and i don't see why anyone would do that unless they're 100% their opponent won't get mutas / hydra bust, but still somewhat legit in the situation he was in, i'm not denying he could've raped him with sairs, i'm just saying they CAN see usage. )
I don't really see this " truly crap design " you talk about, i mean, i know brood war isn't perfect but when i think of the flaws of the game, it's mostly BO advantages and wins in mirror matchups, not arbiters, i mean, you can EMP arbiters, yet i wouldn't call EMP a micro reducing ability, you can more or less dodge the emp, and even if it was impossible, EMP doesn't outright win a game or anything like that. Storming is arguably one of the easiest things to do and it's still not as easy as 1a, i feel really sad when a storm obliterates 20 hydras, but it's not like it's imbalanced or micro limiting.
I am not too sure where i'm going with that but i guess my point is that even if brood war has flaws, it doesn't bring a stupid situation such as a wrap prism flying into your base, with 4 sentries in it, and then forcefielding your ramp forever while the toss warps in 4 zealots and kills all of your workers without you being unable to do anything about it and going like, " well he used forcefields and warped in an army, i guess i lost ... "
I think it is awesome when somebody manages to warp a whole army in your main, while sentries forcefield the ramp.. Sure, you can't micro against it when the forcefield is there, but it's a risky move. The same holds for walking over a big buried baneling army, both only require scouting to prevent it, still everybody loves buried banelings. My point is that people just complain about balance (in this case, game design) when they are frustrated because of their own play. The reason why people love buried banelings killing armies, is because it doesn't happened to them yet....
Edit: I noticed that i overfocussed on your last point, while i agree with the rest of your post :-)
I think it is awesome when somebody manages to 6 pool your main. Sure you can't micro against it when you built your gateway on 14 at your ramp, but it's a risky move. /s
On February 25 2012 07:08 Marti wrote: I don't really see this " truly crap design " you talk about, i mean, i know brood war isn't perfect but when i think of the flaws of the game, it's mostly BO advantages and wins in mirror matchups, not arbiters, i mean, you can EMP arbiters, yet i wouldn't call EMP a micro reducing ability, you can more or less dodge the emp, and even if it was impossible, EMP doesn't outright win a game or anything like that. Storming is arguably one of the easiest things to do and it's still not as easy as 1a, i feel really sad when a storm obliterates 20 hydras, but it's not like it's imbalanced or micro limiting.
I am not too sure where i'm going with that but i guess my point is that even if brood war has flaws, it doesn't bring a stupid situation such as a wrap prism flying into your base, with 4 sentries in it, and then forcefielding your ramp forever while the toss warps in 4 zealots and kills all of your workers without you being unable to do anything about it and going like, " well he used forcefields and warped in an army, i guess i lost ... "
Perhaps "crap" is too strong a word. But my point remains the same: if you choose to define "good design" here as a game that doesn't allow "cheap", "unfair", or "stupid" game situations you'll find that BW was still chock full of them; for example, Reaver drops and Storm drops (they were actually good back then) could obliterate an entire mineral line and you would lose just as fast as you would with your Warp Prism scenario.
It's funny, but your article suggested a far more intuitive solution the fixing forcefields to be microcentric:
Just make a low tier unit of each race 'massive' - preferably a unit that has a limited mobility and role elsewhere (ie queen, or maybe make a terran building crush forcefields when landing, and push units aside rather than being unable to land. Fixing forcefields seems like a small price to pay for losing building blocks).
Then you can respond to the forcefields of your opponent defensively, microing against them by 'stomping' them (the existing massive units are all so large they squash ALL forcefields near them instantly, these would only stop 1 square at a time), but you can't easily aggress protoss with this technique without a severely gimmicky or diluted build order (queen rush lol!).
On February 25 2012 06:19 EternaLLegacy wrote: I find it ironic that you choose LoL as your example of "improvement" on game design when Chu switches from HoN to LoL and explicitly states that LoL is in no way a good competitive game. You took what should be an example of what not to do and tried to spin it as "hey, it's popular, so it must be better!" Instead, it's an example of how games get dumbed down for the bad players who don't want to improve to compete on par with good players.
if its not a competitive game, why do people compete in it? who is this chu guy? is he the best lol player in the world?
You make some really great points, but I also disagree with many of your assertions and overall tone, it's not a sufficiently balanced article.
You give the impression there's no micro in SC2...Happy would like a word with you:
*marines are imba*
You say collosi can't be used as microd single units? People are starting to figure out that isn't the case
There's a ton of micro in SC2. There's probably more than BW (less control of course, but there is a difference). I wouldn't want any more micro, or I'd be playing war3. The prevalance of 1-A mechanic units like the colossus does one positive thing - it encourages good positioning and army control, because that's the only way to survive. Even bad players need decent control or they get roflstomped vs collosi, whereas in BW if both players were bad, neither needed to control their armies well.
You say static defense isn't good? What? Spines and Cannons are sick - but I agree they could use upgrades though - they should benefit from the carapace and melee upgrades of their respective race. So are planetaries - and now, 2 years on, players are figuring out space control. This is the first year where terrans are using mid-map PFs in every match up for space control. The game is young, to be blunt.
Most of the space control issues were map-related. As the map pool shifts, so does the game. Maps with wider chokes but fewer open planes are better at holding space and worse at abusing forcefields. Your article does not take these important factors into account.
On February 25 2012 06:19 EternaLLegacy wrote: I find it ironic that you choose LoL as your example of "improvement" on game design when Chu switches from HoN to LoL and explicitly states that LoL is in no way a good competitive game. You took what should be an example of what not to do and tried to spin it as "hey, it's popular, so it must be better!" Instead, it's an example of how games get dumbed down for the bad players who don't want to improve to compete on par with good players.
if its not a competitive game, why do people compete in it? who is this chu guy? is he the best lol player in the world?
He was a professional HoN player, I don't know if he continued playing HoN, but he tried LoL and rose to #1 in a month easily. So yes, for a period he was.
On February 25 2012 06:19 EternaLLegacy wrote: I find it ironic that you choose LoL as your example of "improvement" on game design when Chu switches from HoN to LoL and explicitly states that LoL is in no way a good competitive game. You took what should be an example of what not to do and tried to spin it as "hey, it's popular, so it must be better!" Instead, it's an example of how games get dumbed down for the bad players who don't want to improve to compete on par with good players.
EternaL, I am in no way saying LoL is an "improvement" on game design. Read my post - I do not use the word "improvement". I am saying that there was a reason that LoL's developers made the design changes that they did, and that if numbers and critical acclaim (by critics, industry designers, and players) are anything to go by, it was a good design decision.
Similarly, DotA 2 is going back to the old ways and the people playing it are loving it. The designers of DotA 2 had a differing game design decision that is paying off. It seems to be a good design decision.
I am NOT making the case that simplifying the game or streamlining the focus of game mechanics makes a better game or is a better game design. My problem with your OP (and what I am arguing against here) is that there are many, many good ways to approach the design of a game, and all of them can be successful in both casual and competitive fields. There is no "THE" philosophy of game design. There are philosophIES of game design.
On February 25 2012 12:53 DaemonX wrote: You make some really great points, but I also disagree with many of your assertions and overall tone, it's not a sufficiently balanced article.
There's a ton of micro in SC2. There's probably more than BW (less control of course, but there is a difference). I wouldn't want any more micro, or I'd be playing war3. The prevalance of 1-A mechanic units like the colossus does one positive thing - it encourages good positioning and army control, because that's the only way to survive. Even bad players need decent control or they get roflstomped vs collosi, whereas in BW if both players were bad, neither needed to control their armies well.
You say static defense isn't good? What? Spines and Cannons are sick - but I agree they could use upgrades though - they should benefit from the carapace and melee upgrades of their respective race. So are planetaries - and now, 2 years on, players are figuring out space control. This is the first year where terrans are using mid-map PFs in every match up for space control. The game is young, to be blunt.
Most of the space control issues were map-related. As the map pool shifts, so does the game. Maps with wider chokes but fewer open planes are better at holding space and worse at abusing forcefields. Your article does not take these important factors into account.
Stutter stepping a Collosus is soo interesting.
1. SC2 does not have more opportunities for micro compared to BW. Marines are a notable exception and I think the change to allow animation cancelling on Marine attacks was pretty good. 2. Space control is great, which is why more units should be developed for that role (e.g. like but not necessarily a lurker), instead of more 1a units (immortals, collosus, marauders, roaches). Planetaries are indeed good for this role.
On February 25 2012 06:19 EternaLLegacy wrote: I find it ironic that you choose LoL as your example of "improvement" on game design when Chu switches from HoN to LoL and explicitly states that LoL is in no way a good competitive game. You took what should be an example of what not to do and tried to spin it as "hey, it's popular, so it must be better!" Instead, it's an example of how games get dumbed down for the bad players who don't want to improve to compete on par with good players.
if its not a competitive game, why do people compete in it? who is this chu guy? is he the best lol player in the world?
For a nice 3 month he was the best LoL player, if I remember, until he came back to competitive HoN (was he on team EG? or was it SK?). In short, as he came back, I remember he couldn't keep up anymore (he used to be one of the best players in HoN), and literally said that those months he played LoL hurt him way too much, as LoL was a much easier game to play, or something like this.
On February 25 2012 06:19 EternaLLegacy wrote: I find it ironic that you choose LoL as your example of "improvement" on game design when Chu switches from HoN to LoL and explicitly states that LoL is in no way a good competitive game. You took what should be an example of what not to do and tried to spin it as "hey, it's popular, so it must be better!" Instead, it's an example of how games get dumbed down for the bad players who don't want to improve to compete on par with good players.
if its not a competitive game, why do people compete in it? who is this chu guy? is he the best lol player in the world?
For a nice 3 month he was the best LoL player, if I remember, until he came back to competitive HoN (was he on team EG? or was it SK?). In short, as he came back, I remember he couldn't keep up anymore (he used to be one of the best players in HoN), and literally said that those months he played LoL hurt him way too much, as LoL was a much easier game to play, or something like this.
As little as I like LoL your statement of him being the best LoL player is silly, he was ranked #1 on the solo queue ladder which is like being #1 NA ladder in SC2 and claiming you're the best player in the world.