|
On January 19 2012 10:42 Colonial wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote:
I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2. The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2.
and the more clumped up your marines are, the more effective banelings will be.
Just like Thor will force Muta to be magicboxed which in turn will make it more suspectible to stimmed marine
you can't just 1A in all situation and hope to win
see clumped marines ? withdraw mutas, send in banelings. the marines are splited ? send in mutas and lings.
|
If you think storm does too much damage now, don't play BW
|
Theorycrafting is nice and all, but cant many of these changes be corrected in the map editor? Theorycrafting feels dirty, because often people neglect how much has changed due to player advancement from beta to now, and the giant resent button many of these changes would have on the metagame, with no guarantee of it being better comeptitively just better for the playstyle of the person suggesting it.
|
You seem to make some valid points. Maybe static defense should also be upgradeable to avoid the use of them in early game cheese.
|
rather than a flaw, it is more like a different game style
|
I agree, this is very well thought out. I don't like the "Go back to BW" comments, this is just a game flaw, and hopefully by enter the void this will be fixed. Or another train of thought is that the game will just shift! More side attacks, pokes and prods, and I do believe we need bigger maps. Think of Tal'Darim, if you move your entire army across the map, mutas can come in, ruin your economy and get to the main fight even before you engage!
|
On January 20 2012 16:00 Gobbles wrote:
If you think storm does too much damage now, don't play BW
But there was is a significant difference that you dont address... in BW the units dont clump up like in in SC2, so the damage is in some way the same, in SC2 its easy to hit 20+ units with one storm if u play against lings or MM, in BW you get a good hitt if you land a storm on 5 Hydras (Its like 18 months since I played BW, so dont slaughter me if my memory is bad).
|
I realy agree with alott on the OP.
But the thing that is that we always compare SC2 to BW... And I am not sure how much of the same game Blizzard wanted it to be, I agree that BW was a better game, and im still hoping that SC2 will become just as good with the years, and im prepared to wait a couple more  Afterall its already very fun and good to watch.
|
I guess in a nutshell, SC2:BW=LoL:DotA. Too fast-paced, hardly enough time to allow the passive side proper reacting, rewards aggressive A-moving playstyle too much, destruction to survivability ratio of units way too high.
|
With respect, the premise of the initial post seems to be "I lose when I am caught with my pants down. I don't like this."
Many of the "problems" you describe are simply different ways of saying "I wish it was easier to sit in my castle and kill things that run at me."
I apologize for being so blunt as I realize you are venting, but I really disagree with your characterization of game play. Watching any good streamer (Spanishiwa and MC come to mind - the former for his verbal insight and the latter for his brilliant execution), one can see that the game is so, so much deeper than the opaque reflection on the surface of the lake.
|
On January 20 2012 07:17 magnaflow wrote:
I hate how all matchups boils down to "don't let them get to that point or you lose" Don't let P turtle to 3 bases, must kill zerg within 10 minutes, must defend against terrans first early push or the games over"
That's a big problem as well... there's too much "do this or you lose" instead of "do this or this or this". I think part of it is the hard counter philosophy... cost-effectiveness of certain units is so high against their target that it becomes boring because you have no option but making that unit. People complain that you should scout and that is a part of the game and if you lose because of that it's your fault etc etc but EVEN if you scout, it's still boring as hell, because you have no options.
Overall I think the warp-gate/chrono/inject/reactor mechanics is a big part of the problem. You take too much of the strategy part out of the game. Example: I understand that zerg is a reactive race but how many times did you see a zerg produce 70 zerglings at once in BW? Not too many cause no one had 35 larvae in stock unless they had 12 hatcheries. Now in SC2...
Also that 'no way of running from a battle' problem that someone pointed out is very annoying as well, since in the mid and late game that's (or should be) one of the best ways to measure ur opponent army size and composition. I see lots of pros throwing zealots and lings at armies to try and get some info but it's kinda retarded that the game forces you to do that.
|
100% agree. This is how i feel about the game aswell.
|
I feel the same. Maybe a general HP boost to almost everything in the game would make things a lot more interesting, though it'd change some other aspects of the game such as the effectiveness of drop play.
|
Some of the points you make are good, and perhaps we'll see a bit more of these missing dynamics in HOTS. But when you make statements like this...
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:... What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
...it brings me back to the reality that this is just another ignorance-fueled ramble that really should be in the blogs section. Starcraft 2 is what it is. Learn to play the game as it was designed, and stop the biased whining. Sorry if I'm being harsh.
|
On February 01 2012 02:30 jaerak wrote:Some of the points you make are good, and perhaps we'll see a bit more of these missing dynamics in HOTS. But when you make statements like this... Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:... What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change. ...it brings me back to the reality that this is just another ignorance-fueled ramble that really should be in the blogs section. Starcraft 2 is what it is. Learn to play the game as it was designed, and stop the biased whining. Sorry if I'm being harsh.
The irony is that you are not providing any game-related argument and still thinks he is the one whining.
There are lots of no-micro vs lots-of-micro situations among all races, it just happens that he chose stalkers to give an example. If you want to explain to me how marauders are hard to micro against stalkers, go ahead.
|
On January 18 2012 18:43 spelhus wrote:I think Blink Stalkers are the scariest deathball in the game. I want goons back
hahahahahaha noway sir! Goons were tooo stupid! never obey ur commands!!! so no goons coming back!
|
On January 20 2012 15:57 sandyph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 10:42 Colonial wrote:On January 19 2012 10:33 shortsteve wrote:
I disagree with everything stated in the OP. If you want to compare stats you'll find that damage in SC2 is lower compared to units in BW. The difference comes from more difficult mechanics and worse AI. Because of the easier mechanics in SC2 it's much more easier to macro. People are maxing out at the 15 minute mark while in BW it took people twice as long in order to achieve the same. This creates more fast paced action and I guess more damage all around, but it's not because units have too much firepower.
Defensive structures are also significantly buffed in SC2 compared to BW, but they seem weaker again because there are more units running around.
In terms of zoning, that's an issue that Blizzard is trying to address in HotS. They're introducing units that aren't part of the death ball to try to get more unit spread around the map. If it's successful then maybe you'll begin to notice the reduced damage going around.
I would also argue that BW had harder counters than in SC2. When you can micro 2 reavers to take out entire zerg armies it's easy to see how powerful certain units can be against others. There's nothing remotely like that in SC2. A single well placed psi-storm would annihilate a muta ball, you'd be lucky to get half health off of mutas in SC2. The thing is...one...you can clump more units together into a deathball...which means more units can fire at a target . Take for example marines. You can clump 20marines together into one neat ball and stim and one shot mutas easily. Compared to BW where u need Medics to help your Marines along with Missile turrets to fend off Muta Harass. And you can only control 12 units at a time. So theres no easy I WIN button like in SC2. and the more clumped up your marines are, the more effective banelings will be. Just like Thor will force Muta to be magicboxed which in turn will make it more suspectible to stimmed marine you can't just 1A in all situation and hope to win see clumped marines ? withdraw mutas, send in banelings. the marines are splited ? send in mutas and lings.
You're wrong in exactly the right way. Battles should look like this, but they don't, because units die too fast and the more units you have in an engagement the less you'll lose. It's not worth it to micro like that in realistic scenarios because of the points the OP raised.
|
I think it's interesting what you say about "no true siege units". People so often go on about how siege tanks in sc2 are good siege units, and no other race gets them, but realistically they can't control ground on their own. I don't think EVERY race should have them, because I don't believe all races should be the exact same.
|
Your game sounds horrible. So... we turtle up, mass up THE good unit(since you want all units to be good vs. all units) and pretty much guarantee that we play our games BGH-style.. max armies then attack and see who wins. Does not sound fun.
I get all the parallels between BW, but what you described wouldnt be like BW. It would just be a really bad, unfun SC2.
|
Hmm interesting, agree with most things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
